Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that long supplementary questions are unfair and selfish.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Milk (Staffordshire)

Mr. Grocott: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received from Staffordshire county council on the question of the supply of milk to the 7 to 11-yearolds.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): None, Sir.

Mr. Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not surprised by the answer to my Question? Is she further aware that for reasons of pure political spite the Tory-controlled Staffordshire county council, against the wishes of parents and against the health interests of children, is refusing to supply school milk? Does she agree that the education of Staffordshire children is far too important to be left to the Neanderthals of the Staffordshire county education committee? What powers will she take to enable us to provide children with milk?

Miss Jackson: To take powers to enable us to provide milk would require

legislation, for which there seems to be little time left in this Session. I agree that it is most undesirable that many counties have reacted as Staffordshire has reacted. It makes one wonder whether they fear the advent of a Tory Government dedicated to cutting public expenditure.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that any child between the ages of 7 and 11 who is in need in Staffordshire now receives free school milk? Is she also aware that the cost to the ratepayer of providing free school milk to schoolchildren between the ages of 7 and 11 regardless of need would be £450,000? Is she aware that that was not even done by the Labour-controlled Staffordshire county council?
Is the hon. Lady aware that if her Government gave the rate support grant that was fair to Staffordshire, the county council would be able to spend more money on urgent priorities, such as putting schoolteachers back in jobs and reconstructing some of the dangerous, old primary schools?

Miss Jackson: It is a pity that Staffordshire has not acquainted the hon. Member with the facts. It will not cost Staffordshire one penny this year to give free milk to all 7 to 11-year-olds in the county. That is because the Government and the EEC are prepared jointly to subsidise this.
Other counties have chosen to give the milk for this year and have put in abeyance their decisions for next year. Most of the counties that have taken the decision that Staffordshire has taken are nevertheless considering wasting money on such things as fee paying at independent schools and voucher schemes.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: How many children in Staffordshire have been deprived of school milk because of the decision by the Staffordshire county council? How many more children are being deprived of milk because of the bandwagon effect of this decision throughout the rest of the country? Will my hon. Friend consider giving additional powers to Labour-controlled district councils which wish to provide milk and which have done so in the past?

Miss Jackson: Any changes in the proposals require legislation. I cannot tell


my hon. Friend offhand how many children are affected, but every child between the age of 7 and 11 in Staffordshire will be deprived of milk because of the decision. Every child living in an area controlled by a Conservative county council which has made a similar decision will also be deprived.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State does not wish to mislead the House. She must be aware that, although the milk will be free for two terms, after that the cost to the local authority will be about 3p per pint. Will she consider sending some constructive advice to local education authorities about how they can use this subsidy to improve the nutritional content of school meals?

Miss Jackson: We have already done what the hon. Member asked for in the last part of his supplementary question. I said specifically that the milk was free for two terms and that after that there will be the question of the rate support grant. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) cannot have been listening, because that is exactly what I said. The cost is likely to be about 1p per day per child.

Transfers to Secondary Schools

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that the current systems of transfer to secondary schools encourage parents of children at primary schools to encourage their children to high levels of achievement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): It is now increasingly common for schools and local education authorities to encourage and help parents to encourage their children to high levels of achievement. Close and easy contacts between teachers and parents are particularly valuable. Arrangements for transfer from primary schools to secondary schools vary from area to area and are not normally important in this context, though I want to see the closest possible contact between schools at the transfer stage.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, in inner London at least, many parents have discovered that their

children are more likely to go to the school of their first choice if they do no work during the last year at primary school? Is she satisfied with that, and will she encourage second and third-choice schools to make themselves more appropriate to parents who think that their children have academic needs which could be met if the school made academic provision?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member's question is puzzling, because the Inner London Education Authority makes provision for children to take O and A-levels in virtually all its schools. In Greenwich, although there is no deficiency of places, Inner London has gone out of its way to provide additional places at schools favoured by parents.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept that slanders on the education system are not uncommon and that vastly more parents are deeply interested in their children's educational welfare and in encouraging their children than ever before? Does she agree that this number is increasing continually, in spite of what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) has implied?

Mrs. Williams: I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is worth saying that there is objective evidence for it. The national primary survey indicates that the tests of reading taken last year—the last time they were done—were the highest since 1955. It is time that that was put on the record in this House.

Mr. Raison: Does the Secretary of State accept that the kind of answer she has given is unnecessarily complacent? Is she aware that there is tremendous concern about standards in the schools, and will she think once again about the desirability of universal testing, not as a means of deciding on transfer but to ensure that we know what the standards are and can do everything we can to raise them?

Mr. Williams: On the first part of the question, if the hon. Gentleman will give credit where it is due I shall take his criticisms more seriously. On the second part, according to the national primary survey, children in classes covering a wide range of the curriculum in primary schools did better in the tests than those


where the curriculum was restricted to the three Rs.

Voucher Scheme

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities have given her notice that they intend to implement the voucher scheme.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have informed her Department that they intend to adopt a voucher scheme.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations she has received about the introduction of education voucher schemes.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the past two months I have received seven letters about education vouchers: three from members of the public, and one each from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), the Kent county Labour Party and the East Kent branch of the Socialist Educational Association. I have had no official notification that any local education authority intends to adopt a voucher scheme, but I understand that Kent is planning to do so experimentally following the feasibility study that it has conducted, which was published last month.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend expect that, if the Kent scheme goes ahead, the district auditor will be looking closely at the handing over to parents of large sums of ratepayers' money, supported as it is by taxpayers' money from the rate support grant? Does she expect the councillors there perhaps to be disqualified, as happened in the case of the Clay Cross councillors who took certain local decisions and were dealt with in that fashion? Does she also expect, if, for instance, £500 were handed over to parents, that the payment would be subject to tax as part of the parents' total income, taking into account that some of those parents might well have sent their children to public schools anyway?

Mrs. Williams: I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr.

Skinner) has put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the tax matter.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I have.

Mrs. Williams: I would not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has indicated the costs of these schemes. On a bare assessment, within the maintained area alone the cost would be between £90,000 and £600,000 a year for one division of Kent—the Ashford division. If, however, the scheme was extended to take in independent schools as well, as many voucher advocates wish, the sums involved would be very much greater and could be nationally as much as £400 million to £500 million. I cannot believe that this is a proper use of public money, particularly in the case of a county which has one of the lower pupil-teacher ratios and one of the lowest levels of provision of nursery and under-fives education.

Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is a very strange concept of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity when the choice of certain schools and expenditure on the voucher scheme will depend for many children on the depth of their parents' pockets—and they are the sort of people who hide behind corporate greed which is represented by the Tory Party? Does she agree that it is a misuse of the concepts of freedom of choice and equality of opportunity, to which we all subscribe? Does she further agree that it is a travesty of the English language to describe the voucher schemes in such terms?

Mrs. Williams: I understand the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling. If we care most about the standards of education for all our children—and I hope we do—we should spend the money on additional teachers, on more books and teaching materials and on better buildings, not on ludicrous administrative expenditure for voucher schemes.

Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that education will play a significant role in the next General Election? Will she therefore make it clear to the country that voucher schemes are just another example of the selfish and socially divisive policies of the Tory Party? Will she confirm that this scheme on a national basis would mean a massive increase in


public expenditure advocated by the Tory Party, which is constantly preaching the doctrine of cutting public expenditure?

Mrs. Williams: As I have indicated, the scheme would mean considerable increases in public expenditure which would not be directly related to the quality of the education system. That would be even more true if the extension of voucher schemes included many thousands of parents who now pay to send their children to independent schools. In fairness to the Conservative Party I must say that we have no idea yet whether it is for, against, or divided on the question of voucher schemes.

Mr. Mayhew: As the Minister has agreed this afternoon that more parents are deeply interested in their children's education than ever before, will she now give credit where it is due and agree that it is desirable that parents should have the right to choose where their children should go to school? Will she congratulate the Kent county council on doing her work for her in introducing a pilot scheme to see how the arrangement would work?

Mrs. Williams: It is very doubtful whether the Kent scheme would be an efficient or effective way of increasing parental choice. Both the feasibility study and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) have indicated publicly that this is a doubtful way of extending or improving parental choice.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is not one of the singular attractions of the voucher scheme precisely that it may be available to subsidise children at private schools? Is not this another illustration of the Conservatve Party favouring privileged education as long as it is open only to the wealthy and is subsidised by the taxpayer and ratepayer?

Mrs. Williams: I am concerned not only with voucher schemes, on which the Conservative Party may well be divided, but with the prospect of assisted places and aided schemes on which it is at one. It seems to me that we shall see the diversion of public money in education towards the education of a small minority and away from the education of the vast bulk of our children.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that Labour Members who criticise this scheme cannot have read it in detail? Why does she not encourage some new ideas in education?

Mrs. Williams: I have said before that the study on the voucher scheme is sensible and carefully thought out, but I believe that if the hon. Gentleman had read it, as I have done, he would not be able to conclude from it that the report came out wholly or even largely in favour of such a system, if, indeed, it is feasible.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Secretary of State aware that many of us on the Conservative side commend the radical thinking of the Kent county council and the careful thought of the feasibility study, which was conducted before the decision was made to go ahead with the voucher scheme, which increases parental choice and apparently causes hysteria to half of the Labour Party? Is she also aware that the careful way in which Kent county council is introducing the scheme contrasts with the way in which the Labour Party brought in compulsory comprehensive reorganisation, which was done without any survey or assessment and, according to her speech of 12th July, it is not still clear whether that reorganisation is successful?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman argued in favour of a voucher scheme in his pamphlet entitled "Parental Choice" which was published in January 1975. But the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said on "Panorama" that
an experiment is going to be quite expensive and if it was introduced generally it would cost a lot of money, and that creates great difficulties because of our policy of keeping public expenditure within bounds.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman was very honest in what he said. There is no doubt but that if one introduced a voucher scheme it would make substantial additional demands upon public money. The party of which the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) is a distinguished member has committed itself to making substantial cuts in public expenditure. It is, therefore, impossible to square this particular circle.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, it is perhaps worth pointing out that his distinguished


colleague the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition increased the proportion of children in comprehensive schools from just under one-third to well over one-half when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Discretionary Awards System

Mr. Hannam: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to conclude her discussion on the discretionary awards system.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The Council of Local Education Authorities has decided, with the support of my Department, to conduct a fundamental review of policy on discretionary awards for advanced courses, in the light of the Department's recent survey and the comments of its own members. I understand that the first meeting of its working party will be on Thursday 20th July and that it aims to complete the review before the end of the year.

Mr. Hannam: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that many students who wish to take courses in accountancy, law, nursing and the arts are unable to do so because they are deprived of finance from local authorities because of discretionary awards systems failures? Will he divert the money which it is planned to spend on keeping sixth formers at school into providing these longer-term courses for these particular students?

Mr. Oakes: Regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am aware of the difficulty, particularly over the past 12 months when the number of such awards has in fact been reduced and when, according to the population, it ought to have increased. As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in previous Questions, there is the problem of awards for performers, which also gives me considerable concern. I hope that the CLEA working party will look into all the aspects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I disagree with him. I believe that it is very important indeed to establish the principles of financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds who wish to stay on at school.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case which was taken up with his right hon. Friend about the youngster from St. Helens who is on £10 per week unemployment benefit and who, when he returns to college to take a 12-months course, is to receive £1 per week as a discretionary award from the local education authority? This is less than the cost of the bus fares between his home and the college. What is my hon. Friend's Department prepared to do about that?

Mr. Oakes: Discretionary awards are exactly what their title suggests. They are discretionary on the local education authority. I hope, however, that this matter of a very low rate of award, which is really an insignificant amount, is one of the matters that the CLEA working party will look into.

Comprehensive Education

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of children is currently being educated in comprehensive schools.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In January 1977 about 80 per cent. of pupils attended maintained comprehensive schools in England and Wales. I regret that provisional figures are not yet available for 1978.

Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on encouraging the development of comprehensive education. Will my right hon. Friend continue the policy of giving all our children the opportunity to develop their abilities and aptitudes to the utmost, and reject completely the schemes now coming forward from the Opposition, such as the development of voucher schemes, or Green Shield stamp schemes, which would give opportunities to certain children and deny them to the vast majority?

Mrs. Williams: Yes. What encourages me a great deal is that as the process of change settles down and more comprehensive schools have experience of working with groups of all abilities, so the standards in our schools continually improve. I believe that this will be very helpful to us in the future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In reply to that last question, the right hon. Lady suggested that at the moment some schools


are not able to cope with all types of children. May I refer her back to her rather belligerent argument in reply to my supplementary question on Question No. 2 and ask whether she is satisfied that some parents are getting the sort of school that they believe is appropriate for their child because they have encouraged their child to work hard—for example, a top ability child? The question I am putting is not a partisan one but a straightforward question about which most parents are concerned.

Mrs. Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point in the spirit in which he makes it. The inspectors have looked very carefully at the whole question of the education of the gifted child and have made certain quite precise recommendations on that matter, as they have in the case of the child who needs remedial education. We are persuaded that where schools have viable sixth forms it is possible to provide the kind of education that will take a child up to university education, and beyond, within a comprehensive system.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is precisely the future of sixth forms in Liverpool about which parents and teachers are most concerned because of the present proposals of the Liberal-Tory coalition in Liverpool? If those proposals were carried through, they would greatly damage the concept of sixth forms, particularly in the northern part of Liverpool, such as Walton and elsewhere. In regard to the closure of the Paddington comprehensive school, which is the only all-purpose comprehensive school in the city, what representation has my right hon. Friend had, apart from that which I have given to her, and what is her attitude to this matter?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has, I understand, seen a deputation on some of the matters which have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We are aware that there is concern in the area. We are very anxious to make sure that in Liverpool, as elsewhere, there is an opportunity for youngsters to go to sixth forms. In some cases that means that there will have to be a sixth form of sufficient size to make that possible.

Mr. Whitney: When the Secretary of State considers the possibility of a future extension of the comprehensive system throughout the country, will she be prepared to consider, without the benefit of political dogma, the mounting evidence of the low performance of comprehensive schools, as was given earlier this year, for example, by the results of the Institute of Mathematics tests? They showed very clearly that the schools in Buckinghamshire, which are secondary modern schools without "the benefit of comprehensivisation", are far better both in performance and in terms of attendance than the other schools. Will the right hon. Lady take account of this in her future policy towards comprehensivisation?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman raises a very large point and I shall try to deal with it briefly. There are variations in the standards achieved by children according, to some extent, to the catchment area of the school, and no one would deny that. An inner city school will find it more difficult to achieve high academic standards than one in leafy Buckinghamshire. We have never quarrelled with that. If the hon. Gentleman will make fair comparisons, I would draw his attention to the comparative studies, which are the only ones I know of, made in Sussex, Leicestershire and Sheffield, all of which indicate that a settled comprehensive system—I bet that the hon. Gentleman has seen none of them; he simply shakes his head—has produced results at least as good as, and in many cases better than, the selective system which preceded it.

School Meals (Confidentiality for Recipients)

Mr. Freud: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps she has taken to recommend confidentiality for recipients of free school meals.

Miss Margaret Jackson: This matter has been brought to the attention of local education authorities on many occasions. In circular 3/78, which was issued in January this year, my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of trying to avoid practices which would allow pupils receiving free meals to be identified by other pupils.

Mr. Freud: Will the Minister draw to the attention of the few schools which still openly differentiate between recipients of paid and free school meals the many that now organise this properly and with discretion?

Miss Jackson: We are always willing to do so when any such cases are drawn to our attention. Occasionally it is the case that such allegations are made and they are proved to be not altogether accurate. Certainly they are always investigated and followed up with care.

Miss Joan Lestor: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the intention may be, there is a great deal of difference between the way in which schools handle the matter of free school meals? Is it not about time that this country found a different way of financing school meals than by forcing children to pay or not pay, as the case may be? Will she, therefore, set up a working party to study some alternatives?

Miss Jackson: I think that many of the questions about financing school meals have been gone into fairly thoroughly in the past, but I shall consider my hon. Friend's advice.

Departmental Employees (Northern Region)

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many senior officials of her Department are employed within the Northern region.

Mr. Oakes: One assistant secretary, who is head of my Department's pensions branch and controller of the Darlington site. In addition, 20 members of Her Majesty's inspectorate have their headquarters in the region.

Mr. Beith: Leaving aside the gentleman who is responsible for pensions on a national basis, may I ask whether the Minister recognises that the centralised nature of his Department causes concern to bodies in the Northern region, including the economic planning council, which find it much easier to get other Departments which have regional offices to coordinate their policies in the light of regional needs and feel that the headquarters-based Department of Education and Science is much more difficult to fit into that framework?

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend and I met the chairmen of the regional authorities a short time ago. Recently my right hon. Friend has written to the chairman of the Northern region. The difficulty is that our Department does not have a regional base in the same way that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Industry have. But we have undertaken that, whenever education is a substantial Dart of the agenda of the regional council meeting, senior administrators from the Department will attend.

Mr. Raison: I congratulate the Minister on the fact that his Department does not have a regional base and does not employ an excessive number of civil servants.

Mr. Oakes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and surprised by his remarks.

School Rolls

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice her Department is giving to local education authorities on the problem of falling school rolls.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My Department's advice is contained in circular 5/77, "Falling Numbers and School Closures", which was issued in June last year.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister aware that one of the most serious aspects of this problem is the calculation or the estimate that primary school rolls may fall by as much as one-third over the period 1973 to 1986? In view of that, is her Department considering one or two imaginative proposals such as the idea of interchange of teachers between schools?

Miss Jackson: Yes, we are looking at all the aspects of falling rolls and all the solutions which might be adopted to cope with the ensuing difficulties.

Mr. Madden: What advantage has been taken of lower school rolls to improve the teacher-pupil ratio? What advantage have local education authorities taken of the improved rate support grant settlement to appoint more teachers?

Miss Jackson: We do not have the final figures on the advantage that


authorities have taken of the extra money that we have given them to employ more teachers, but it is our understanding that so far it appears that this money is being used for that purpose—which clearly we are pleased about.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, about the obvious possibilities for improvement, it is certainly our hope that as time goes on falling numbers in schools will offer opportunities to improve class sizes as well as, perhaps, to take out of use old buildings, and opportunities to implement a variety of other desirable aims.

Mr. William Shelton: Is the Minister aware that despite falling rolls in London, as a result, I suppose, of comprehensivisation, the selection procedures by ability adopted by the Inner London Education Authority mean that in some cases a pupil, for instance, in band 1 cannot go to a neighbouring school which does not have vacancies in band 1 but has vacancies in band 2 or band 3 and is directed to travel for perhaps half an hour or an hour by bus in order to attend a school which has vacancies in band 1? Is the hon. Lady aware of the great deal of parental misery that this is causing?

Miss Jackson: As those who are living in selective counties could tell the hon. Member, any process of selection usually involves inconvenience and travelling. However, it is my understanding that the system that the ILEA adopts achieves about 90 per cent. parental satisfaction in school choice—a higher percentage than anywhere else in the country.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend make sure, before she agrees to any school closures as a result of falling rolls, that local authorities which propose closures have expanded their provision of nursery education?

Miss Jackson: It is not within my power to ensure that, but certainly questions of that kind are taken into account when we consider proposals for school closures.

Dr. Boyson: Will the Minister consider three ways in which falling school rolls could help in education? First, where schools have to close, those that close should be the schools in which parents have no confidence and not

simply those with the oldest buildings. Secondly, now that we have to recruit fewer teachers, we could raise the academic standards among those we are recruiting. Thirdly, more space could be given in certain schools which have been overcrowded for years in the middle of our cities.

Miss Jackson: My understanding is that space is already becoming available in schools in our cities which have been overcrowded for years. With regard to the question of academic standards of the teaching profession, we have already taken a number of steps on this matter, which—sadly—were not taken by the previous Conservative Government.

Higher Education (Oakes Report)

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to make known her decisions on the recommendations of the Oakes report.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In the next two or three months.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the right hon. Lady envisage thereafter a period of consultation, so that her decisions can be widely discussed?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, indeed. My understanding is that already consideration is being given to some aspects of the report with the Council of Local Education Authorities. We are at present receiving a great many submissions on the report, which will be carefully considered before the Government give their final conclusions on the matter.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Concerning higher education, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people feel that our universities are not accountable in terms of the funds they receive from the public purse, and that vice-chancellors at universities quite often have a very bad reputation in terms of industrial relations, industrial democracy and safety? Will my right hon. Friend institute some kind of inquiry into the whole set-up in our universities?

Mrs. Williams: On the first part of the question, I do not wholly agree with my hon. Friend, because I think that the universities in Britain have maintained an international standard in a way that some


others have not. With regard to the second part of the question, however, I think that the vice-chancellors and university authorities should give very careful attention to the involvement of their staffs, both teaching and non-teaching, in the administration of universities. That is a matter that I hope they will pursue in the light of the White Paper and other progress made by the Government in this respect.

Dr. Hampson: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be wrong to prejudge the decision of this House and that, as legislation will be needed to implement the recommendations of the Oakes report, the stories that she intends to set up a shadow system in the meantime, before she gets the legislation, are quite wrong?
Secondly, is there not a policy vacuum at present in higher education, since we have no decisions on policy beyond 1981? Therefore, when shall we have decisions on the White Paper? Should not this House debate them first?

Mrs. Williams: On the first part of the question, it was not our initiative but that of the Council of Local Education Authorities which led to the consideration of preliminary work on the establishment of regional bodies, but it has been made quite clear by the council and ourselves that this will in no way prejudice the conclusions about the report, nor can it do so. Secondly, I would welcome, and so would my hon. Friend the Minister of State, a discussion and debate in the House when time is available.
Thirdly, I think that the hon. Member, of all people, perhaps, would not object to the fact that we are trying to discuss very widely future directions in higher education through the medium of our discussion document. This is a real attempt to involve higher education institutions in the outcome for the future.

Careers Advice (Secondary Schools)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made of the number of secondary schools which do not provide careers advice for their pupils; and what proportion this represents of the total number of secondary schools in England and Wales.

Miss Margaret Jackson: No recent survey has been made, but my Department's circular on local education authority curricular arrangements asked authorities to report on their activities for encouraging and facilitating careers education and guidance in schools. The need for further departmental action will be reviewed in the light of consultations based on the replies to that circular.

Mr. Molloy: When my hon. Friend has those consultations, will she make it transparently clear to chief education officers and careers officers that there must be even more and better liaison between the pupils themselves, the pupils' parents, local industrialists, higher sections of education, and trade union officials in the areas involved?

Miss Jackson: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's contention. We believe that as much information as posible should be available early in a pupil's career before subject choices are made, and certainly that parents should be involved as much as possible.

Mr. Haselhurst: What estimate has the hon. Lady made about the amount of time per year in which each secondary school pupil actually has the benefit of careers education and guidance?

Miss Jackson: We shall be able to make such an estimate in a more informed way when we have the replies to the circular which is asking precisely that kind of question.

Handicapped Children (Warnock Report)

Mr. Cope: asked the Secretary of of State for Education and Science what action she intends to take in the light of the Warnock report on the education of handicapped children and young people.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to conclude discussions on action to be taken to implement the statement in the Warnock Committee's report that one in five children needs special educational help.

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she expects to conclude her discussions on any changes in the current


arrangements for the education of handicapped children, consequential upon the publication of Mrs. Warnock's report, Command Paper No. 7212, May 1978.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend announced on 24th May the Government's intention to consult widely before reaching decisions on the Warnock Committee's findings. A consultative document will be sent to a wide range of interests shortly inviting replies by 28th February 1979. Meantime my Department and the Welsh Office, in conjunction with other Departments concerned, will be conducting their own study of the report's recommendations and suggestions.

Mr. Cope: Will the Secretary of State and the other Ministers in considering this report, give particular attention to the importance, which I think comes out strongly in the report, of education for the under-fives who are handicapped, which is even more important than it is for the under-fives generally?

Miss Jackson: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. It has been a priority of my Department for some time, when funds for under-fives have been short, to make them available particularly to people of this kind.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister accept that, desirable though it is to aim at the integration of handicapped pupils with normal pupils in normal schools, a point is reached on the scale of handicap when special schools remain very important? Does she accept also that Mrs. Warnock and her colleagues rather blurred this point and suggested that special schools were not as important as, I believe, they are?

Miss Jackson: I accept that there may be particular varieties or degrees of handicap which cannot be coped with in ordinary schools, but it has been my experience that whenever I have concluded that a particular group, say, is so involved, I have then come across examples of successful integration. If the Warnock Committee was not more definite on this, I suspect that it was because the committee did not want to rule out future developments which might make it invalid.

Mr. Roderick: Does my hon. Friend agree or not agree that the reform of

special education is of such importance as to warrant detailed consultations and the provision of adequate resources? Does she not agree that some local authorities are now rushing into reform as a money-saving device as a result of section 10? Will she urge them to make haste slowly?

Miss Jackson: I accept that the proper preparations and resources are necessary before such a change can be made. I have little evidence that many local authorities are proceeding in this direction already without such preparation, but I shall study any such cases which are brought to my attention.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the hon. Lady agree that education of the handicapped should be among the highest priorities of any Government? What plans does her Department have for giving parents the right of access to the records of their children's education and a right of appeal against a decision of the local authority about their children's education?

Miss Jackson: It is my understanding that it is rarely the case that parents of handicapped children do not have both the right of appeal and the right of veto over what should happen to their children's education. As for information and school records, the hon. Gentleman will know that the recommendations of Warnock about the keeping of detailed records are a little at variance with some representations that we have had recently. However, these are among the questions that we shall be considering with care.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ovenden, Question No. 15.

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question No. 14 was taken with No. 13.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member. It is just that he usually sits in a different place.

Mr. Wainwright: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great feeling of unrest among the parents of children who will require special treatment and teaching? Is she not further aware that to give local authorities this grave responsibility is asking too much? Will she therefore use her power and influence to


ensure that children who require special education shall have that opportunity? When there are so many teachers out of work, can we not run special courses in this respect for those teachers?

Miss Jackson.: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, and I will consider it.

Teachers (Unemployment)

Mr. Ovenden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her latest estimate of the number of teachers who will be unemployed after the commencement of the autumn 1978 school term.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In June 7,024 men and women registered as unemployed were seeking work as school teachers in England and Wales, a fall of 1,828 since March. As the determining factors are so uncertain, it is not possible to forecast teacher unemployment in 1978–79.

Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of teacher unemployment could be substantially reduced if authorities with higher than average pupil-teacher ratios devoted their resources to employing teachers and improving their educational services rather than frittering their money away on irrelevancies such as voucher schemes? Is she aware, for instance, that Kent county council intends to spend about £600,000 on an experimental voucher system while at the same time imposing on the Hoo middle comprehensive school in my constituency a pupil-teacher ratio worse than the national average for primary schools?

Mrs. Williams: I am glad to say that the overall pupil-teacher ratios in England in both primary and secondary schools last year were the best ever attained, but there are still some authorities, like my hon. Friend's authority, which have not reached the average and which could certainly employ more teachers. We have provided in the rate support grant this year for 11,300 additional teaching posts. I hope that authorities which have not yet taken up their share will reconsider and do so as quickly as possible.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: When shall we see the next set of regulations to enable teachers to retire early with their bene-

fits? Would not that be a way of providing occupation for newly qualified teachers?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have promulgated the first set of regulations with regard to the retirement of teachers. The more difficult second group, which involves superannuation enhancement, will, we hope, be laid before the recess.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Litterick: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 18th July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with members of the general council of the Trades Union Congress.

Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for that answer. Will my right hon. Friend take some time today to take note of the sweet-talking speech made by the Leader of the Opposition at the weekend to a gathering of Asian immigrants and note the sharp and cynical contrast between the tone and content of that speech and the "shock horror" television statement she made some weeks earlier, averring that the country was being swamped with Asian immigrants? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will save time if I make this point early. If the hon. Gentleman will ask the Prime Minister questions on matters for which he has responsibility, that will help us all.

Mr. Litterick: Has my right hon. Friend or the Leader of the House received a request from the Leader of the Opposition, which she promised she would make as a matter of urgency, for time to debate the subject of immigration?

The Prime Minister: The Lord President tells me that he has received no request for a debate on immigration. I would welcome, as I am sure the whole House would welcome, such a debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "You supply the time."] There is not much time left, because the Opposition, who had under their control most of the available free


parliamentary time, have failed to use this opportunity to have such a debate. However, if the right hon. Lady's speech means that she is moving closer to the Government's policy in these matters, I welcome it. I have never wanted this to be a matter of party dispute.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I cross-examine the Prime Minister on the Government's policies? Last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman did not know that his own Government's record on unemployment was one of the worst in the western world. As today's figures show unemployment rising to 1·5 million and job vacancies falling, what is his excuse this time?

The Prime Minister: I reflected on the right hon. Lady's question last week because I thought that it was a most interesting one. I find that the Conservative Party documents take the view that I rather take on these matters. They say that it is "idle" to talk of an "economic miracle" because our problems are so deep-seated—

Dr. Hampson: The Prime Minister talked like that.

The Prime Minister: —and that what is needed for Britain is a "long hard haul." This has been true because of the decline of this country's comparative productive capacity over a period of 50 years.
However, as the right hon. Lady repeats the question, I will answer her. Unlike her and the Administration of which she was a member, we have not run away from the problems by dodging increases in the prices of the products of nationalised industries or by dodging the needs for a new industrial strategy or by dodging the question of inflation or by allowing the money supply to go awry. What we have done is to take the basic issues and handle them. That is well understood in the country. We shall continue to do so. I am very glad to say that unemployment has increased at a relatively lower rate this year than in past years. That shows that our policies are beginning to pay off.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister will recollect that he inherited a figure of 600,000 unemployed. Under his Prime Ministership and his predecessor's, it is now 1·5 million. Does not this prove that Socialism is incapable of creating

genuine jobs and increasing wealth, but is capable only of sharing out wealth that other people have already created?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What it shows is that the world has been going through a substantial recession in which every major country has had a large increase in unemployment. That is what it shows, and that is what the Bonn summit was about yesterday and the day before. But, as the right hon. Lady talks about our inheritance, I shall quote a few more things that we inherited—a disgraceful rate of increase in the money supply, a disgraceful rate of inflation, a disgraceful rate of increase in the minimum lending rate, and half a dozen other matters. We put those right.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will my right hon. Friend find time in his busy schedule to go to South Africa House and see whether he can get it opened in order that he may deliver birthday greetings to Nelson Mandela on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, after 16 years on Robben Island, greetings which the South African authorities refused earlier today to accept from the Labour Party, sections of the Liberal Party, the trade union movement, students and a cross-section of society? Will he please try to do that?

The Prime Minister: I have long been, as I know my hon. Friends are and I hope many Opposition Members are, an admirer of Nelson Mandela. Whether or not South Africa House accepts the greetings, I should like on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to send him formal greetings from this Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on Margaret."]

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick).

Mr. MacKay: During his hectic day, will the Prime Minister explain to the House how these disastrous unemployment figures tally with his party's slogan at the last election "Back to work with Labour"? Is he aware that the 900,000 people who have been put on the dole by the incompetence of his Government want a straight answer to this question?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is, of course, the case that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there would be many more unemployed if the Opposition had had their way about Leyland and, indeed, about many other such matters. It is also true that the situation is much better than it was when we had a three-day week—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: No, it is not.

The Prime Minister: —and that production is higher now than it was then, as indeed it should be. If the hon. Gentleman should happen to be here after the next General Election, which I very much doubt, he will find that unemployment will be going down steadily.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As it was agreed at Bonn yesterday to stimulate the western economies, will my right hon. Friend today consider expanding ours by means particularly of removing or relaxing the restrictions on housing, health—

Mr. Tebbit: And dividends.

Mr. Allaun: —the social services and education'? Contrary to the views expressed from the Opposition Benches, would not this help simultaneously to relieve human need and unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the faster rate of economic growth that this country is experiencing this year clearly gives us a bigger dividend—but not the kind of dividend that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was referring to—for increasing those public expenditures. But we must not increase public expenditure until we have earned it, and so far we have not earned it.

Mr. Donald Stewart: As the Government admit that food prices have risen by 104 per cent. since they came to office—[HON. MEMBERS: "Common Market."]—running alongside restriction of wage increases, does not the Prime Minister think that he should take time off today to announce the end of this attack on the living standards of the people?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Wages have gone up faster than food prices over the past four or five years. That has had no impact on living standards. Indeed, living standards are going up this year. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that,

because of the situation we inherited, food prices went up very fast in the early years of this Government, but I hope that he will rejoice with me in the fact that during the past 12 months they have increased by only 6·7 per cent.

CBI

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the CBI.

The Prime Minister: I hope to meet representatives of the CBI tomorrow. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Government's industrial strategy has been greatly welcomed on both sides of industry and that they are equally aware that the Opposition clearly have no industrial strategy? But, in his discussions with the CBI, can he suggest further Government action to implement some of the recommendations of the sector working parties?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is my profound belief and knowledge that the CBI and the TUC together welcome the Government's industrial strategy, despite the attacks that the Opposition constantly make upon it. We are constantly working with industry through the sector working parties. Indeed, much of the work that is now being done is being translated to the level of firms. This is helping to increase productive efficiency and exports.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Prime Minister aware that in my constituency unemployment has risen to 7·6 per cent., which is three times as high as it was at the time of the three-day week? When he is talking with the CBI, will he inform it that he intends to make ours a development area so that industrialists will receive better grants to bring factories into our area?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady will put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on development areas, I am sure that she will receive an answer. But I must point out that what she seeks would involve additional public expenditure, and her own leaders are heavily


committed against that. But that is not the only discrepancy we find between their general statements and their particular requests.
As to the levels of unemployment, I think that what we did at Bonn yesterday will help with this matter throughout the world and will therefore have an impact on our own country. But it would be wrong and mischievous for anyone to pretend that the level of unemployment, either throughout the industrialised world or in the United Kingdom, will cone down fast, because it will not. That is why we must keep the temporary employment subsidies and our other job-creating measures. Some day I should like some support from the Opposition fir those.

Mr. Whitehead: As my right hon. Friend has been having some very successful talks with trade unions recently, will he bear in mind that one thing that would upset many trade unionists is any decision to return aero-engines to Chile? Will the Cabinet reconsider that?

The Prime Minister: It is not a matter for the Cabinet to reconsider. It is not a Cabinet matter at all, except on the question of the issue of an export licence. The engines belong to Chile. Whether I like that or not is not in question. They were sent here for repair and now they are due to be returned, as the repair has been paid for. That is the legal position, and the Government do not come into the matter.

Mr. Prior: In view of the excuses produced by the Prime Minister this afternoon on the subject of unemployment, may I ask whether he has forgotten that his party and his right hon. Friends fought the October 1974 General Election on the basis that unemployment was under control and that inflation was coming down? Were they perhaps not telling the truth then? Therefore, what is the excuse for anyone's believing them next time?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether anyone will believe me. I can only tell the facts as I see them. It is for the public, not for the Opposition, to make up their minds about that. I think that they have a pretty good idea about it. What is quite clear is that the world recession which started in 1973,

following the quintupling of oil prices, has been longer than any country expected. It was to unemployment that all of the seven nations which assembled yesterday were directing their attention. I hope that we shall be able to overcome this problem, but I will not make false promises about it. As regards inflation, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have reduced the level much below what is was when he was in office. Further, we have kept it under control.

HEADS OF GOVERNMENT (BONN MEETING)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): A meeting was held in Bonn on 16th–17th July of the Heads of Government of Germany, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, together with the President of the European Commission.
The background is that the world economy is not growing fast enough, and world unemployment and inflation remain too high. Last March, in conversations with Chancellor Schmidt and President Carter, I proposed that all our countries should aim to agree on a concerted approach to five main issues, namely, world economic growth, better use of energy, increased trade, more currency stability and assistance for developing countries. I am glad to report that at our meeting at Bonn we agreed on a number of measures dealing with these points, recognising that our actions are interdependent, and that the measures required are different according to internal conditions that our countries face.
Contrary to much of the prior scepticism, we achieved a good measure of success, with undertakings being given for specific action by those attending. We recognised that the long-term problems of the world economy will yield only to sustained efforts over a substantial period. But, as a result of this meeting, the Summit countries are pointed in the right direction, and the measures that will follow from the individual commitments will help to create more jobs and more trade without rekindling inflation.
Our first concern was that the worldwide level of unemploymnt is too high. We agreed on the need to reduce the general level of inflation still further, and that higher growth and reduced inflation


will contribute to greater currency stability and will also lessen the pressure for reducing world trade through protectionism.
Some of the specific proposals for action that Heads of Government intend to carry out in their own countries are summarised in the Declaration which I am placing in the Official Report.
Among them, Germany undertook by the end of August to propose to its legislative bodies substantial additional measures of up to 1 per cent. of gross national product to strengthen demand. One per cent. is approximately DM13 billion.
Japan undertook to determine in the months of August and September whether additional measures are needed to raise domestic demand to achieve a growth target 1½ per cent. higher than last year.
On behalf of the United Kingdom I undertook to continue our policies to contain inflation so as to improve still further the prospects for growth and employment.
The United States undertook to have in place by the end of 1978 a comprehensive framework for reducing American dependence on imported oil by as much as 2·5 million barrels per day by 1985, and stated that it is also determined that by 1980 the United States' oil price should be raised to the world level.
The European Community has agreed to reduce dependence on imported energy to 50 per cent. by 1985.
There was general agreement on the need for increased production, particularly of coal and nuclear energy. The United States and Canada both stated their firm intention to continue as reliable suppliers of nuclear fuel within the framework of effective safeguards.
We welcomed the progress made in the multilateral negotiations now taking place to improve and strengthen the international trading system. We called for them to be concluded by 15th December 1978. In this connection, Japan stated its intention to work for an increase of imports to Japan and to keep the total volume of Japanese exports for 1978 at or below the level of 1977.
Throughout these discussions we were very conscious of the needs and interests of the developing countries. Our efforts to strengthen our own economies will

be of indirect benefit to a number of them, but they need to make more direct economic progress. They also need increasing flows of financial assistance and other resources, and we noted with regret that COMECON countries do not take their due share in this matter.
We agreed that the lending of the International Development Association should be enabled to rise annually and in real terms. We also agreed to work for a successful conclusion to the negotiations on a Common Fund, to continue with efforts for individual commodity agreements, and to ask the World Bank to examine the prospect of financing hydrocarbon exploration to meet some of the needs of the developing countries. I suggested that we should study the possibility of doubling the capital of the World Bank.
As regards international monetary policy, it is our view that implementing the comprehensive measures I have outlined will help to bring about a better pattern of world payment balances and thus lead to greater stability in exchange rates. Monetary authorities will continue to intervene to counter disorderly conditions in the markets. The meeting was informed of the proposals made at the last meeting of the European Council for a scheme for monetary cooperation, and the European Community representatives undertook to keep the other participants of the summit informed.
We reached an important agreement among ourselves to combat international terrorism through the hijacking of passenger aircraft. In particular, our countries will in future halt flights to and from countries which refuse extradition of or prosecution of those who have hijacked aircraft and/or do not return such aircraft. We urge other Governments to join us in this commitment. It is our joint intention that this important new policy shall operate immediately.
Finally, we instructed our representatives to convene by the end of 1978 to review the progress that will have been made as a result of this declaration. It represents a combined attack on the economic problems that our countries confront. The measures on which we agreed will mutually reinforce each other. Their total effect should thus be more


than the sum of their parts. We undertook to commend them to our Parliaments and to seek public support for the policies and measures that will be required, and this with confidence I now do.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three points to the Prime Minister? First, he will be aware of my habit of comparing the phraseology of communiqués one with another across the years and noting a certain similarity of words, a certain similarity of optimism in the reports which followed the summit meetings, and a certain similarity in the lack of practical results during the ensuing year. Bearing in mind that the language of the Downing Street summit meeting, about which the Prime Minister was very optimistic indeed, used such phrases as
our most urgent task is to create more jobs
and
We commit our Governments to stated growth targets
—which were given in the briefing—may I ask what is the right hon. Gentleman's assessment of the practical benefits which have flowed from previous summit meetings?
Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister about some of the briefing which was given alongside the Bonn communiqué? Clearly there was a great deal, and it is difficult to tell which was accurate and which was not. There is a report which appears in The Sun today under the name of the journalist whom the Prime Minister has chosen as his political adviser, which says that the Bonn summit meeting could mean an extra 2p off income tax in an autumn Budget. May I ask for the Prime Minister's comments upon that report?
Thirdly, may I say that we welcome the agreement to take action against States which harbour hijackers? Will the Prime Minister say what further action he and his colleagues propose to extend that agreement to other nations and other airlines, because clearly it will not be effective unless everyone joins in? Will he also say what action he proposes to take to seek to persuade other States to ratify the Hague, Montreal and Tokyo conventions on anti-terrorism and hijacking?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is wrong as regards hijacking. The measure can be effective, because the seven of us who were at the Summit meeting control over 50 per cent. of the air traffic of the world. That will be a significant deterrent to other countries concerned. As to other action that we shall take, we intend, through diplomatic channels, to approach other countries and to ask for their support in this matter. But the seven countries which assembled at the meeting intend to go ahead. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not indulge in her usual tactic of playing down any successful international co-operation in which this country is concerned.
The right hon. Lady asked about previous summit meetings. I should have thought that probably the biggest benefit secured—and it is a negative benefit so far—is that none of us has gone further down the road to protectionism, as might have happened if we had not met. I have always regarded that as very important.
I think that the practical benefits which will arise from this summit meeting will come from the specific commitments that individual countries, to some of which I have referred, have made. They have gone on record much more fully than they have at previous summit meetings as to what they are ready to do—certainly to a much greater extent than at the Downing Street summit, because I think that everyone—except, perhaps, the Opposition—realises that the situation is that much more serious, a further 12 months having elapsed. Throughout the world the situation has got worse.

Mr. Tebbit: So the right hon. Gentleman admits that it is worse now than 12 months ago.

The Prime Minister: Has the hon. Member not learned by now that the situation has got worse? Although I have no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition would like to hold me responsible for all the ills of all the world, I am responsible only for the United Kingdom.
I do not know to what the right hon. Lady was referring in her reference to the columns of The Sun, but I think that those personal references come amiss from her.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of his hon.


Friends on the role that he has played in the summit meeting? Will he tell us whether, during the discussions on trade, there were any discussions about introducing effective safeguards to replace the present article 19 of GATT? Will he give us an assurance that those agreements already in being, such as the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, will not be disturbed?

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There was no discussion about the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. It is regarded as vital that we should all move to a general acceptance of the GATT provisions. This includes the United States, which has not so far, because of its own legal position, adopted all those provisions. There was certainly acceptance of that by the United States representatives, and I believe that there is a good chance of our so moving.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call anyone else, I remind the House that the main business is on a timetable motion and that the first guillotine will come at 5 p.m. Obviously, therefore, it will not be possible to call as many hon. Members as usual to ask supplementary questions. Mr. Crouch.

Mr. Crouch: While not wishing to detract from the Prime Minister's efforts to solve the economic problems of the free world, may I suggest to him that, at a time of international conferences, instead of visiting a small town in Germany his time might have been better spent in visiting a small castle in Kent, if only to pull up the drawbridge there and tell the people concerned to get on with the job of finding a settlement in the Middle East and not to leave until they have done so?

The Prime Minister: We were very glad to provide the facilities for this conference on the Middle East, and we all hope that it will make progress. We shall do anything we can to assist those taking part in it.
I think that it shows a total lack of proportion, however, to refer to the capital of the Federal Republic of Germany as a small town. The Federal Republic has the largest economy in Europe. As we were assembled there, probably controlling more than 50 per cent. of the world's

trade, I believe that it was worthwhile spending 48 hours in order to see what concerted action we could take to try to relieve the problems of world poverty and slow growth.

Mr. Urwin: While welcoming my right hon. Friend's assurances about the discussions on terrorism, may I nevertheless ask him whether in the discussions on that subject any reference was made to the Council of Europe's convention on terrorism, which was signed by the Committee of Ministers on 10th November 1976 and has so far been ratified by only three of the member States of the Council of Europe—Austria, Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany? Can we assume that the British Government will now ratify that convention as one of the major contributions towards the suppression of terrorism?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss the general convention on terrorism. The issue that was raised was the hijacking of aeroplanes, and it is to that measure that the seven countries attending the meeting have committed themselves. I am glad to say that I believe that there will be an extension of the number of countries prepared to take part. Certainly we shall do our best.
I shall look into the question of the ratification of the Council of Europe's convention on terrorism and write to my hon. Friend about it.

Mrs. Bain: In the light of the commitment by the EEC to reduce dependence on imported energy by 50 per cent over the next seven years, will the Prime Minister confirm, first, that this dependence is largely oil-based, and, secondly, that it will be no part of the deal to step up the rate of production in the North Sea, since this would be greatly against the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole and of the Scottish people, for whom the revenue should be used to create long-term secure employment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is right in saying that most of the dependence is oil-based. I could not help reflecting more than once yesterday and the day before, when I heard of the concern of countries such as France and Germany and other great industrial countries, which do not have the supplies of


energy that we have, that we are indeed fortunate to have North Sea oil.
It is not, of course, the intention to alter the proposals which have already been put before Parliament, and which are well known, concerning the rate of extraction of oil from the North Sea, which we regard as being the right programme for the next four or five years. After that, no doubt, the matter will be looked at again.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister accept that we welcome any determination to increase world demand, more particularly if it actually comes about? Does he accept that the greatest barrier to increasing Britain's level of demand is our domestic rate of inflation? Will he say exactly how he proposes to carry out his undertaking to continue policies to bring inflation under control? Does he believe that the announcement which will be made in the White Paper on Friday will ensure that our rate of inflation in 1979 will be at or below the average level of inflation in OECD countries?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would await the publication of a White Paper on this matter. I will not go into details until I have had further discussions about it, if he will excuse me. Of course, inflation is a big handicap, but we have fortunately reduced that handicap very substantially. Certainly the Opposition have nothing to laugh about. Inflation is at only half the level at which it stood when they left office. Then it was going up, and now it is at the lowest level for some years. We shall continue with the policies which have brought about this degree of success so far.
The biggest problem that we have is one to the solution of which the Government can contribute only in a limited way. That is the relative failure of our industry to be more productive. Through the efforts of management and the work force, there are many industries which are extremely productive. There are others which are not. If we can raise the general level of productivity, we shall have a faster rate of growth and be able to do the other things that we want to do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from each side.

There is a Ten-Minute Bill to follow, before we get to the main business.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I understand the scepticism of the Opposition, but will my right hon. Friend accept that firms in areas such as Teesside, which depend to a great extent for their business on exports—for example, ICI, Head Wrightson, British Petroleum and many other major firms—will be delighted with the efforts being made by the Government to get some growth in world trade? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been held up in recent times by the currency instability in the world? Will he tell the House why at the summit meeting there seems to have been less emphasis placed on means to overcome currency instability?

The Prime Minister: Some of the currencies have been more stable in recent months, but basically currency instability, apart from speculation, arises because the economies of the various countries are not sufficiently convergent. We believe that the measures that we have taken, if they are carried out—that is something that does not fall to me—will bring greater convergence and, therefore, less currency instability. That is the reason why this currency stability has become more of a residual than an actual target.

Mr. McCrindle: As the national airlines of all the seven participants at Bonn are members of the International Air Transport Association, was any consideration given to the possible use of commercial sanctions, such as cutting off the national airlines of those countries which may harbour terrorists from the very useful clearing house facilities operated by IATA?

The Prime Minister: We did not give consideration to that, but I am sure that there are a number of issues here which can, and will, be followed up by the Ministers concerned. We are anxious to put on record the simple, plain statement that I have announced this afternoon. As all of us have made it, and as all of us mean it, I believe that it ought to have some effect on anyone who is considering terrorism in this area.

Mr. McNamara: Not least of the important statements which my right hon. Friend has made has been the statement


about the Common Fund and the progress and emphasis which is being made to help developing countries. However, my right hon. Friend omitted to mention the question of debt relief, which was also omitted from the statement made after the summit meeting. Can my right hon. Friend make a statement about the position with regard to debt relief for the least developed countries?

The Prime Minister: I am not able to make such an agreed statement, as there was not general agreement on this matter. But I believe that this is an issue on which we can be of great help to some of the developing countries, where the interest payable on their debt forms a substantial proportion of their export proceedings. I hope that we shall follow this matter up and try to get a satisfactory solution to it.

Mr. Whitney: The reports of the Bonn conference suggest that the Prime Minister had relatively little to offer in the way of stimulating the world economy in comparison with the other six Heads of Government and that he was forced to rely on the reduction of income tax which is to be carried out in this Budget. Did he make it clear to the other Heads of Government that the reduction in income tax was carried out in the face of the opposition of his own party and Government?

The Prime Minister: I was not required to make clear anything about our internal affairs. The proposals which were put forward by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer represented 1 per cent. of the gross national product, and that in itself was regarded as a very useful addition. But as I have emphasised more than once, the major thing that we can do is to keep the rate of inflation under control. Although I know that Opposition Members are a little nervous about coming months, the plain truth is that what this country has done in recovering from the economic follies of the previous Administration is much admired overseas.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the results from Bonn are just as contradictory as those from Rambouillet and Puerto Rico? Is it not a fact that the other six Heads of State are leaders from free market

economies, all of whom are determined to practise non-interventionist policies in their own countries? How is it possible, therefore, for them to deliver internationally what they refuse to deliver domestically?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend does not seem to be aware of the levels of control which other Governments have over their fiscal and monetary policies, as we have. Of course it is quite possible for the Federal Republic of Germany to take fiscal and other measures, through either reductions in taxation or increases in public expenditure—it is for it to choose—to add the equivalent of up to 1 per cent. to its GNP. In itself, that is equivalent to about DM 13 billion. The Japanese intend to do the same. The United States has said that it intends to try to adjust its balance of payments position by certain actions which President Carter can take in connection with oil prices.
All these are practical steps which have been missing from previous declarations, where we have confined ourselves to general statements. But here specific issues and specific figures have been inserted, and that is a great advance.
I do not know why Conservative Members should want to write this down. Do they not want to see unemployment reduced or efforts made to try to get world growth increased? If so, why do they sneer at efforts of this kind?

Mr. Forman: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to draw to the attention of his hon. Friends below the Gangway the very important commitment in the summit communiqué to the effect that all the nations at Bonn were prepared to agree not to put any impediments in the way of private investment, whether domestically or internationally? Does he accept that that is a very important contribution to the revival of world trade?

The Prime Minister: Private investment has a considerable part to play, both in this country and elsewhere. It is not private investment to which I find any objection. What I find objection to is the Opposition's Pavlovian reaction to anyone who suggests that public expenditure and public investment have a part to play.

Mr. Speaker: Northern Ireland motion.

Mr. David Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the many hon. Members trying to catch your eye, and knowing your difficulty of getting on with the business of the House, may I simply ask whether the Government are prepared to give time to debate this matter before the House rises?

Mr. Speaker: I expected that was the question which the hon. Gentleman wished to ask.

Following is the Declaration:

The Heads of State and Government of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany. France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America met in Bonn on 16th and 17th July 1978. The European Community was represented by the President of the European Council and by the President of the European Commission for discussion of matters within the Community's competence.

1. We agreed on a comprehensive strategy covering growth, employment and inflation, international monetary policy, energy, trade and other issues of particular interest to developing countries. We must create more jobs and fight inflation, strengthen international trading, reduce payments imbalances, and achieve greater stability in exchange markets. We are dealing with long-term problems, which will only yield to sustained efforts. This strategy is a coherent whole, whose parts are interdependent. To this strategy, each of our countries can contribute; from it, each can benefit.

GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION

2. We are concerned, above all, about world-wide unemployment because it has been at too high a level for many years, because it hits hardest at the most vulnerable sections of the population, because its economic cost is high and its human cost higher still. We will act, through measures to assure growth and develop needed skills, to increase employment. In doing this, we will build on the progress that has already been made in the fight against inflation and will seek new successes in that fight. But we need an improvement in growth where that can be achieved without rekindling inflation in order to reduce extremes of balance of payments surpluses and deficits. This will reduce destabilising exchange rate movements. Improved growth will help to reduce protectionist pressures. We need it also to encourage the flow of private investment, on which economic progress depends; we will seek to reduce impediments to private investment, both domestically and internationally. Better growth is needed to ensure that the free world is able to develop to meet the expectations of its citizens and the aspirations of the developing countries.

3. A programme of different actions by countries that face different conditions is needed

to assure steady non-inflationary growth. In countries whose balance of payments situation and inflation rate does not impose special restrictions, this requires a faster rise in domestic demand. In countries where rising prices and costs are creating strong pressures, this means taking new measures against inflation.

Canada reaffirmed its intention, within the limits permitted by the need to contain and reduce inflation, to achieve higher growth of employment and an increase in output of up to 5 per cent.

As a contribution to avert the world-wide disturbances of economic equilibrium the German Delegation has indicated that by the end of August it will propose to the legislative bodies additional and quantitively substantial measures up to 1 per cent. of GNP, designed to achieve a significant strengthening of demand and a higher rate of growth. The order of magnitude will take account of the absorptive capacity of the capital market and the need to avoid inflationary pressures.

The President of the French Republic has indicated that, while pursuing its policy of reduction of the rate of inflation, the French Government agrees, as a contribution to the common effort, to increase by an amount of about 0·5 per cent. of GNP the deficit of the budget of the State for the year 1978.

The Italian Prime Minister has indicated that the Government undertakes to raise the rate of economic growth in 1979 by 1·5 per centage points with respect to 1978. It plans to achieve this goal by cutting public current expenditure while stimulating investments with the aim of increasing employment in a non-inflationary context.

The Prime Minister of Japan has referred to the fact that his Government is striving for the attainment of the real growth target for fiscal year 1978, which is about 1·5 per centage points higher than the performance of the previous year, mainly through the expansion of domestic demand. He has further expressed his determination to achieve the said target by taking appropriate measures as necessary. In August or September he will determine whether additional measures are needed.

The United Kingdom, having achieved a major reduction in the rate of inflation and improvement in the balance of payments has recently given a fiscal stimulus equivalent to rather over 1 per cent. of GNP. The Government intends to continue the fight against inflation so as to improve still further the prospects for growth and employment.

The President of the United States stated that reducing inflation is essential to maintaining a healthy U.S. economy and has therefore become the top priority of U.S. economic policy. He identified the major actions that have been taken and are being taken to counter inflation in the United States: Tax cuts originally proposed for fiscal year 1979 have now been reduced by $10 billion; government expenditure protections for 1978 and 1979 have been


reduced; a very tight budget is being prepared for 1980; steps are being taken to reduce the direct contribution by government regulations or restrictions to rising costs and prices, and a voluntary programme has been undertaken to achieve deceleration of wages and prices.

The meeting took note with satisfaction that the common approach of the European Community already agreed at Bremen would reinforce the effectiveness of this programme.

ENERGY

4. In spite of some improvement, the present energy situation remains unsatisfactory. Much more needs to be done.

5. We are committed to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

6. We note that the European Community has already agreed at Bremen the following objectives for 1985: to reduce the Community's dependence on imported energy to 50 per cent., to limit net oil imports, and to reduce to 0.8 the ratio between the rate of increase in energy consumption and the rate of increase in gross domestic product.

7. Recognising its particular responsibility in the energy field, the United States will reduce its dependence on imported oil. The U.S. will have in place by the end of the year a comprehensive policy framework within which this effort can be urgently carried forward. By year end, measures will be in effect that will result in oil import savings of approximately 2·5 million barrels per day by 1985. In order to achieve these goals, the U.S. will establish a strategic oil reserve of I billion barrels; it will increase coal production by two-thirds; it will maintain the ratio between growth in gross national product and growth in energy demand at or below 0·8; and its oil consumption will grow more slowly than energy consumption. The volume of oil imported in 1978 and 1979 should be less than that imported in 1977. In order to discourage excessive consumption of oil and to encourage the movement toward coal, the U.S. remains determined that the prices paid for oil in the U.S. shall be raised to the world level by the end of 1980.

8. We hope that the oil exporting countries will continue to contribute to a stable world energy situation.

9. Looking to the longer term, our countries will review their national energy programmes with a view to speeding them up. General energy targets can serve as useful measures of the progress achieved.

10. Private and public investment to produce energy and to use it more efficiently within the industrial world should be increased. This can contribute significantly to economic growth.

11. The further development of nuclear energy is indispensable, and the slippage in the execution of nuclear power programmes must he reversed. To promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, the nuclear fuel cycle studies initiated at the London Summit should be pursued. The President of the United

States and the Prime Minister of Canada have expressed their firm intention to continue as reliable suppliers of nuclear fuel within the framework of effective safeguards. The President intends to use the full powers of his office to prevent any interruption of enriched uranium supply and to ensure that existing agreements will be respected. The Prime Minister intends that there shall be no interruption of Canadian uranium supply on the basis of effective safeguards.

12. Coal should play an increasingly important role in the long term.

13. Joint or co-ordinated energy research and development should be carried out to hasten the development of new, including renewable, energy sources and the more efficient use of existing sources.

14. In energy development, the environment and human safety of the population must be safeguarded with greatest care.

15. To help developing countries, we will intensify our national development assistance programmes in the energy field and we will develop a co-ordinated effort to bring into use renewable energy technologies and to elaborate the details within one year. We suggest that the OECD will provide the medium for cooperation with other countries.

16. We stress the need for improvement and co-ordination of assistance for developing countries in the energy field. We suggest that the World Bank explore ways in which its activities in this field can be made increasingly responsive to the needs of the developing countries, and to examine whether new approaches, particularly to financing hydrocarbon exploration, would be useful.

TRADE

17. We reaffirm our determination to expand international trade, one of the driving forces for more sustained and balanced economic growth. Through our joint efforts we will maintain and strengthen the open international trading system. We appreciate and support the progress as set forth in the Framework of Understanding on the Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations made public in Geneva, 13th July 1978, even though within this Framework of Understanding some difficult and important issues remain unresolved.

The successful conclusion of these negotiations, the biggest yet held, would mean not just a major trade liberalisation programme extending over the 1980s but the most important progress yet made in the GATT in relation to non-tariff measures. Thus the GATT rules would be brought more closely into line with the requirements of the next decade—particularly in relation to safeguards—in ways which would avoid any weakening of the world trading system and be of benefit to all trading countries developed and developing alike. A substantially higher degree of equity and discipline in the international trading system would be achieved by the creation of new mechanisms in many fields for consultation and dispute settlement. Uniform application of the GATT rules is vital and we shall move in that direction as soon as possible.

In all areas of the negotiations the Summit countries look forward to working even more closely with the developing countries. We seek to ensure for all participants a sound and balanced result, which adequately takes into account the needs of developing countries, for example, through special and differential treatment, and which brings about their greater participation in the benefits and obligations of the world trading system.

At last year's Downing Street Summit we rejected a protectionist course for world trade. We agreed to give a new impetus to the Tokyo Round. Our negotiators have fulfilled that commitment. Today we charge them, in cooperation with the other participants, to resolve the outstanding issues and to conclude successfully the detailed negotiations by December 15, 1978.

18. We note with satisfaction the renewal of the pledge to maintain an open market oriented economic system made by the OECD Council of Ministers last month. Today's world economic problems cannot be solved by relapsing into open or concealed protectionism.

19. We welcome the statement on positive adjustment policy made by the OECD Ministers. There must be a readiness over time, to accept and facilitate structural change. Measures to prevent such change perpetuate economic inefficiency, place the burden of structural change on trading partners and inhibit the integration of developing countries into the world economy. We are determined in our industrial, social, structural and regional policy initiatives to help sectors in difficulties, without interfering with international competition and trade flows.

20. We note the need for countries with large current account deficits to increase exports and for countries with large current accounts surpluses to facilitate increases in imports. In this context, the United States is firmly committed to improve its export performance and is examining measures to this end. The Prime Minister of Japan has stated that he wishes to work for the increase of imports through the expansion of domestic demand and various efforts to facilitate imports. Furthermore, he has stated that in order to cope with the immediate situation of unusual surplus, the Government of Japan is taking a temporary and extraordinary step of calling for moderation in exports with the aim of keeping the total volume of Japan's exports for the fiscal year of 1978 at or below the level of fiscal year 1977.

21. We underline our willingness to increase our co-operation in the field of foreign private investment flows among industrialised countries and between them and developing countries. We will intensify work for further agreements in the OECD and elsewhere.

22. In the context of expanding world economic activity, we recognise the requirement for better access to our countries' markets for the products of the developing countries. At the same time we look to increasing readiness on the part of some of the more advanced developing countries to open their markets to imports.

RELATIONS WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

23. Success in our efforts to strengthen our countries' economies will benefit the developing countries, and their economic progress will benefit us. This calls for joint action on the basis of shared responsibility.

24. In the years ahead the developing countries, particularly those most in need, can count on us for an increased flow of financial assistance and other resources for their development. The Prime Minister of Japan has stated that he will strive to double Japan's official development assistance in three years.

We deeply regret the failure of the COMECON countries to take their due share in the financial assistance to developing countries and invite them once more to do so.

25. The poorer developing countries require increased concessional aid. We support the soft loan funds of the World Bank and the three regional development banks. We pledge our governments to support replenishment of the International Development Association on a scale that would permit its lending to rise annually in real terms.

26. As regards the more advanced developing countries, we renew our pledge to support replenishment of the multilateral development banks' resources, on the scale needed to meet the growing needs for loans on commercial terms. We will encourage governmental and private co-financing of development projects with these banks.

The co-operation of the developing countries in creating a good investment climate and adequate protection for foreign investment is required if foreign private investment is to play its effective role in generating economic growth and in stimulating the transfer of technology.

We also refer to our efforts with respect to developing countries in the field of energy as outlined in paragraph 15 and 16.

27. We agreed to pursue actively the negotiations on a Common Fund to a successful conclusion and to continue our efforts to conclude individual commodity agreements and to complete studies of various ways of stabilising export earnings.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY

28. The erratic fluctuations of the exchange markets in recent months have had a damaging effect on confidence, investment and growth throughout the world. Essentially, exchange rate stability can only be achieved by attacking the fundamental problems which have contributed to the present large balance of payments deficits and surpluses. Implementation of the policies described above in the framework of a concerted programme will help to bring about a better pattern of world payments balances and lead to greater stability in international exchange markets. This stability will in turn improve confidence and the environment for sustained economic growth.

29. Although exchange rates need to respond to changes in underlying economic and financial conditions among nations, our monetary authorities will continue to intervene to the


extent necessary to counter disorderly conditions in the exchange markets. They will maintain extensive consultations to enhance these efforts' effectiveness. We will support surveillance by the International Monetary Fund, to promote effective functioning of the international monetary system.

30. The representatives of the European Community informed the meeting of the decision of the European Council at Bremen on 6/7 July to consider a scheme for a closer monetary co-operation. The meeting welcomed the report and noted that the Community would keep the other participants informed.

CONCLUSION

31. It has been our combined purpose to attack the fundamental economic problems that our countries confront.

The measures on which we have agreed are mutually reinforcing. Their total effect should thus be more than the sum of their parts. We will now seek parliamentary and public support for these measures.

We cannot hope to achieve our purposes alone. We shall work closely together with other countries and within the appropriate international institutions; those among us whose countries are members of the European Community intend to make their efforts within this framework.

We have instructed our representatives to convene by the end of 1978 in order to review this Declaration.

We also intend to have a similar meeting among ourselves at an appropriate time next year.

NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matter of the Eighth and Ninth Reports of the Examiner of Statutory Rules, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Foot.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the six motions related to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 6) (International Development Association) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 7) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) Regulations 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Fishing Nets (North-East Atlantic) (Variation) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 946) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the West Coast Herring (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1978 (S.I., 1978, No. 930) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income (Norway) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Foot.]

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT)

3.56 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 so as to provide increased powers for the Director General of Fair Trading.
I shall briefly explain the reasons for this Bill and then its contents. In the The Times of 25th April, there was an article which commenced with the following two short paragraphs, which are worthy of the attention of the House. I quote:
Walk into Marks &amp; Spencer's Oxford Street store in London, steal half a dozen shirts and you are likely to find yourself in Marlborough Street Magistrates' Court paying a hefty fine.
Sit round a table with three or four other businessmen and agree to rig local authority contracts thereby relieving the public purse of large sums of money and you will probably end up with nothing more than a judicial wigging and a warning not to be so naughty in future.

Hon. Members: And a peerage.

Mr. Rooker: Following this, there appeared in The Guardian on 14th June a leader entitled, "Our league of gentlemen" which commenced as follows:
If Mr. Bloggs of Clapham found a way of improperly removing £9 millions of the Post Office's money, he would no doubt end up behind bars. To the ordinary man-in-the-street, the sight of BICC, Pirelli General, Standard Telephones and Cables and Telephone Cables getting away with a hefty out-of-court settlement for operating an unregistered and secret price-fixing agreement must look very much like one law for the private individual and another for the corporation.
The year 1978 has so far been the year when some sunshine has lit the dark corners of corporate greed in this country,


corporate greed which is typified by the Conservative Party and is in no way represented on the Labour Benches. This year, in the ready-mixed concrete industry, companies have been found out operating illegal price-fixing agreements. To date, over 140 have been registered since the whistle was blown. Companies involved have included Ready Mixed Concrete itself, Amey Roadstone, Tilling, and Tarmac.
In the road-surfacing industry, or black top as it is known, the Financial Times has forecast that by the end of this year, 1,000 previously secret price-fixing agreements will have been registered. Companies involved include Tarmac, Tilling and Wimpey.
We have also seen the telephone cables industry saga, where the four companies have repaid £9 million to the Post Office.
The common thread in all these industries has been the fact that the existence of the price-fixing agreements did not come to light as a result of the investigation of the Director General of Fair Trading or, previously, the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Practices. In fact, it came about by accident. In the ready-mixed concrete industry, the secret price-fixing arrangements were discovered by accident by a farmer in Leicestershire, a Mr. Hill. The black top price-fixing arrangements were discovered when someone from the industry walked into the Office of Fair Trading and spilled the beans. The telephone cables saga was discovered as a by-product of a Monopolies Commission inquiry which had not set out to look for price-fixing arrangements.
Section 36 of the 1976 Restrictive Trade Practices Act covers the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to obtain information. The section provides:
If the Director has reasonable cause to believe that a person being
—then there is a list of directors or managers—
is or may be a party to an agreement
the director has the power to go to the court and say to that company "I want details of the agreement."
But in 1969—and I shall explain the apparent contradiction of dates in a moment—Lord Denning took the teeth out of the legislation. In 1969, he said

that the statement of the director's powers
does not make the registrar the judge of the matter. The words are not:'… if the Registrar thinks he has reasonable cause to believe.' They are:' If (he) has reasonable cause', i.e., in fact. And it is for the judge to find whether or not reasonable cause did in fact exist. The registrar can, of course, act on information from credible people and the like '—
he did not define exactly what he meant by "credible people", but clearly off-the-cuff remarks are not enough—
but if he seeks an order from the court, he must place his information before the court so that the court can see whether in fact there is reasonable cause to believe 
that the agreements existed.
Hunches or informed tipoffs to the Director General of Fair Trading about secret illegal price-fixing agreements are not on. He cannot take any action. He cannot even ask the company or get an order asking "Have you or are you party to an agreement?"
Mr. Gordon Borrie, the present Director General of Fair Trading, has explained this "Catch 22" situation. He is quoted in the same article in The Times of 25th April as saying:
I dare not issue a formal inquiry notice unless I am really confident that I could if necessary show the courts that there is a restrictive agreement—which is really something of a nonsense—because if I could already prove the existence of an agreement I would not be writing to a firm saying Is there one and are you in it?'
We have placed this important public official in a crazy position.
The solution appears to lie in a change of the wording in section 36 so that it reads: "If the Director believes", and so on. We have to use the words used by the learned judge which he suggests will show the way round if the director thinks or believes that he has a cause. This seems to be the only way to restore to our law the teeth which Lord Denning removed in 1969. I know it means this official going on fishing expeditions. But on the record of corporate greed, all these cases involve ripping off the public, and it is thoroughly justified to send this official out on fishing expeditions.
Right hon. and hon. Members will have noted that I referred to the 1976 Act and to a judgment in 1969. This is because the 1976 Act was a consolidation


measure. By and large it is based on the 1956 Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the relevant provision being section 14.
I believe that the Minister in charge of pushing through that legislation in 1956, the then President of the Board of Trade, made most of my case for me. On the Second Reading of that Bill, on 6th March 1956, he said:
The purpose of any Bill on this topic must be to secure that the virtues of free enterprise—initiative, adaptability and risktaking—are not throttled by restrictions imposed by industry upon itself. Agreements between traders about the prices that they will charge, or the markets or consumers to whom they will sell, or the quantities that they will produce, are all attempting ways of avoiding competition."—[Official Report, 6th March 1956; Vol. 549, c. 1927.]
On Third Reading, on 14th June 1956, the then Minister said:
We on this side believe in a system of free competitive enterprise, but that system must be defended not only on its success but on the fact that arrangements which may be made under it are not only fair, but can demonstrably be shown to be fair. One method —at least, one which is well understood—of demonstrating that things are fair in this country is that they should be judged not simply by industry itself, not even by politicians or by Governments, but by courts working and operating upon criteria which from time to time are laid down by Parliament"— [Official Report, 14th June 1956; Vol. 554, c. 863.]
The then President of the Board of Trade obviously forgot about Lord Denning and, of course, Mr. Peter Tnorneycroft, as he then was, may have forgoten a lot more since.
I believe that we should move to restore teeth to the 1956 Act and make it operate in the way that the then Minister said that it should operate. I realise that there will be an increase in the number of civil servants with the passage of this Bill. But when right hon. and hon. Members consider that in West Germany there are 125 lawyers and economists working for the Government to stamp out illegal price-fixing arrangements and that we have six, and then when we consider the comparative economic performances of so-called private enterprise in this country and West Germany, I think that the House should give me leave to introduce the Bill without any opposition.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member rising to oppose the motion?

Mr. Ridley: I am, Mr. Speaker.
I was tempted to allow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to bring in his Bill without contest, until I heard what he said. He expressed his remarks in such a partial way and in such a party way that I believe that it is right to object to his Bill. I say this as one who played a part in designing the last Fair Trading Act and one who has made a television broadcast railing against the cartels in ready-mixed concrete and in black top. It is quite right that those cartels should be upset and, as far as I am aware, the Director General of Fair Trading is busy doing that under the present legislation with the maximum amount of power.
What the hon. Member for Perry Barr seeks to do is to impute that these unacceptable rackets are in some way part of the Conservative Party. That is what he said. He opened his remarks by saying that he had seen a report in The Times saying that it was easier to rig local authority contracts than to steal half-a-dozen shirts from Marks and Spencer.
It is odd to hear the hon. Member for Perry Barr, representing the political party that he does represent, talking about rigging local authority contracts. I do not know whether he was thinking of Poulson or of Bryants, but I ask him to moderate his language and to take the party sting out of what he is trying to say.
The hon. Gentleman made a disgrace allegation. Does he want me to go on to talk about the Hodge bank and about Labour Party Properties which tried to give itself planning permission in order to pry to recoup its £90,000 loss in the property development arena by manipulation of the public power to create wealth out of planning permission?
How dare the hon. Member raise such a subject? How dare he make such allegations? How dare he expect to go unchallenged? No one will yield to any Government supporter more quickly than myself about the need to promote competition, be it in the public or the private sector—be it in all sectors of our economy. I believe that there is everything to be said for strengthening he powers to have a fully competitive policy.
But that was not the motive of the hon. Member in bringing forward this motion. He knows that he cannot get this Bill enacted before the end of this session. He knows that it will be left to my right hon. and hon. Friends to enact a proper Bill to increase competition. He knows, furthermore, that competition must be provided in a far wider range of industries than those to which he has referred.
Let me talk about the nationalised industries. Why is it that private manufacturers of telephone equipment cannot invade the monopoly of the Post Office beyond the subscriber's front door? Why is it that people cannot dig coal profitably in competition with the National Coal Board? Why is it that people cannot generate and sell electricity, either to the grid or to other private consumers?
Why is it that in the warped mind of the hon. Member for Perry Barr once an industry is nationalised and is a statutory monopoly it is somehow sacrosanct and immune from criticism?
The moment we on this side of the House suggest that there should be competition in some small peripheral areas on the edge of the nationalised industries, the full weight of union monopoly is

Division No. 278]
AYES
[4.13 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Cowans. Harry
George, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashley, Jack
Crawford, Douglas
Golding, John


Ashton, Joe
Crawshaw, Richard
Graham, Ted


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Atkinson, Norman
Oalyell, Tam
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bagier, Gordon A. 1.
Davidson, Arthur
Hardy, Peter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Davtes, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnelt, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Keller, Eric S.


Bates, Alf
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooley, Frank


Bean, R. E.
Deakins, Eric
Horam, John


Beith, A. J.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Huckfield, Les


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunn, James A.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Janner, Greville


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Canavan, Dennis
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Judd, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kelley, Richard


Carter, Ray
Flannery, Martin
Kerr, Russell


Cartwright, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Clemitson, Ivor
Forrester, John
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, (N'w'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Freud, Clement
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Corbett, Robin
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)

brought down upon us and we are told that it is unacceptable to the unions. When we talk about competition we should consider the unions. Where is the competition in the coal industry? I have heard trade union leader after trade union leader say that the unions will not accept competition, from the private sector or from imports or, indeed, from any other source.

The Labour Party should make up its mind. If it stands for competition, let it break the monopolies of the unions and the nationalised industries. Let it make its demands for full and unfettered competition fair, and full and across the board. I believe that this is how it should be. As I rail against the monopolies and the cartels in the private sector with the hon. Member for Perry Barr, so let him join me in extending that to the whole of our economy. Because of the partiality of his motives I hope that the House will not give him leave to bring in his Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at the Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 147.

Litterick, Tom
Pardoe, John
Stewart. Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Loyden, Eddie
Park, George
Slott, Roger


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Parker, John
Strang, Gavin


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest
Swain, Thomas


McCartney, Hugh
Phipps, Dr Colin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McKay, Allen
Radice, Giles
Thompson, George


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Reid, George
Tilley, John


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tinn, James


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tomlinson, John


Madden, Max
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Urwin, T. W.


Magee, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mahon, Simon
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marks, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, David


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sandelson, Neville
Weetch, Ken


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew


Mikardo, Ian
Sever, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morton, George Martin
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland
Sillars, James
Wilson, William (Coventry SF)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Newene, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Woof, Robert


Noble, Mike
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Orbach, Maurice
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Snape, Peter



Ovenden, John
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Mr. Bruce Grocott.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Molyneaux, James


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus


Banks, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Benyon, W.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morgan, Geraint


Biggs-Davison, John
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nelson, Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Brittan, Leon
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Budgen, Nick
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Bulmer, Esmond
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Burden, F. A.
Jessel, Toby
Ronton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Rhodes James, R.


Channon, Paul
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cockroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Sainsbury, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Costain. A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Elliott, Sir William
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Speed, Keith


Emery, Peter
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spence, John


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Nell
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stanley, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Rown
Tapseli, Peter


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrave)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mills, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Wakeham, John
Whitney, Raymond



Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nichoias
Mr. Nicholas Ridley and


Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Ian Gow.


Wells, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. George Rodgers, Mr. Ivor Clemitson, Mr. Max Madden. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. John Pardoe and Mr. Cyril Smith.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1976 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. J. W. Rooker accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 so as to provide increased powers for the Director General of Fair Trading; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to

be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Miss Joan Lestor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was replying to the debate on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), he made certain allegations about Labour Party Properties, implying corruption and mishandling of planning permission. May I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask whether it is in order to invite him to substantiate his allegations or to withdraw them, or to repeat them outside where they can be answered?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member takes responsibility for his own statements in this place.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND BILL

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments further considered.

Clause 80

REFERENDUM

Lords Amendment: No. 109, in page 38, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) If a resolution under section 79(4) of this Act has been moved in each House of Parliament, but has not been passed by both Houses the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of this Act.")

4.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was inserted into the Bill at Committee stage in another place by a majority of 101 to 94. Although at first glance it appears to be disarmingly simple and persuasive, it is my case that when subjected to closer analysis the need for it becomes very much less apparent.
I should like to remind the House of some of the conditions that we have already put into the Bill about this being implemented. As the House is aware, the passing of this legislation does not lead thereby to the implementation of devolution. There are other steps on the road. The first of these is the requirement that there must be a referendum. In addition, the House at an earlier stage passed a special rule—which the Government deeply opposed but which the House decided to carry—to the effect that there should be a 40 per cent. hurdle in the Bill. Now we have an attempt by the House of Lords to add yet another condition on the way in which the House reaches a decision whether devolution is to be implemented.
The House will recollect that the referendum which is to be held is advisory, but one expects the House to pay careful attention to the vote recorded in that referendum—otherwise there is little

point in going to the trouble of having it.
I should also remind the House that last night we agreed to Lords Amendment No. 106, which added a little to the provision relating to the 40 per cent. —namely, to the effect that the Secretary of State will have to bring forward an order repealing the Act if there is a failure to obtain 40 per cent. or a failure to obtain a "Yes" majority or a simple majority. Therefore, I believe that this House has already taken over-careful precautions in terms of how it considers the question whether devolution is to be implemented.
Let me illustrate my remarks by considering some possibilities. If the vote in the referendum is such that less than 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote, in fact vote "Yes", the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to bring before the House an order repealing the Act. If that situation arises, there is no need for this type of amendment because it will be brought sharply before the House, the Secretary of State will have to lay an order, and the House must reach a decision in it.
If, on the other hand, the 40 per cent hurdle is overcome and more than 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote in fact vote "Yes"—which is quite a high proportion of the electorate—the Act will not come into force automatically. There must be a commencement order laid before the House and approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That will be the point at which, if over 40 per cent. have voted "Yes", the House will have to reach its decision.
I regard that as a belt-and-braces situation, particularly when one takes into account the additional requirement that when we consider the repeal provisions, there has to be a simple majority voting "Yes" in a referendum. But another place has gone on to say that if the commencement order is not passed, there will have to be a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to repeal the Act.
We feel that that is going a little too far. It is also open to a certain amount of misinterpretation, particularly among the Scottish electorate, which is sometimes puzzled about some of the rules for the holding of referendums. It has not escaped the attention of many people


that we are making a different provision in this referendum from that made by Parliament in the EEC referendum. Provisions such as this regarding the repeal of the Act do not appear to have been in the minds of the Opposition at the time when that legislation was discussed any more than were conditions about the figure of 40 per cent.
We believe that what Parliament has already provided is quite sufficient. It was provided against the Government's advice, but we reluctantly accepted it. There will be a 40 per cent. rule in the referendum and a rule that if there is not a majority voting "Yes", an order for repeal will have to be laid before the House. I am bound to wonder for what conceivable situation we need to make even more provisions.
The 40 per cent. rule is quite a stiff hurdle. I believe that it will be passed because of the popularity of these proposals among the electorate in Scotland. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is correct in thinking that my view is wrong, there is no problem for him because if the 40 per cent. requirement is not reached, the repeal order has to be laid before the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not vote for the amendment because he will realise that it is unnecessary since it concerns an absurdly hypothetical situation.
There are others with whom the amendment might find favour—my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for example. Let me recall the history of his approach to devolution. First, he signed a motion asking the Government to bring in a referendum, despite the fact that he had often made critical comments about a referendum on this matter. That request was met, but that was not enough. He had to go on and vote for the 40 per cent. rule. He won that victory and I understand that his position now is that even if the 40 per cent. rule were met and the Scottish people voted in very large numbers for the implementation of devolution, my hon. Friend—whatever the people of Scotland say in the referendum for which he asked and for which he voted special rules—will still vote against devolution when the matter comes back to the House. That is an absurd position for

someone who has urged that there should be a referendum. I do not think that we should oblige him any more by putting in further special conditions. It is because I believe that the amendment is unnecessary that I recommend that it should be rejected.

Mr. James Sillars: As I understand the position, if we accept the amendment, we might never even get to the referendum. Have I read the amendment wrongly?

Mr. Smith: I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the amendment would not have that effect. It will mean that if there were a failure to carry the commencement order laid before the House, the Secretary of State would have to lay a draft order to repeal the Act and wipe it off the statute book. It will not affect the referendum. If it did, my opposition to it would be even more strenuous.
We have done enough in putting special conditions on the holding of the referendum and on Parliament's consideration of it without indulging another place by inserting any more conditions.

Mr. Leon Britton: It is hardly surprising that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) should have been misled into misreading the effect of the amendment because the Minister of State talked about almost anything rather than the actual provisions of the amendment. He criticised the general position of his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on the referendum. That is not what the amendment is about. It can be made to sound highly technical, but we believe that it ought to be supported because it is important to make clear in the legislation that we pass what the precise consequences of the referendum are to be and to what its various outcomes will lead.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold—first, to confirm the advisory character of the referendum and, secondly, to complete the machinery for dealing with the situation arising from one possible result of the referendum. We welcome it as a valuable contribution to the Bill from another place.
The Minister of State asked, fairly enough, a question that he has asked before. It has been answered before, but


since he asks it again it must he answered again. He queried why different and more precise requirements are to be put into this referendum compared with those that were put into the EEC referendum. The answer is simple. It is that in the European referendum the whole of the United Kingdom was given the opportunity to decide its fate. In this referendum, Scotland alone is being given the opportunity to expres a view on a piece of legislation which may certainly affect Scotland more directly but which will undoubtedly have profound implications for the government of the United Kingdom as a whole. That cannot be escaped.
In those circumstances, although most of us would accept the fact that the referendum inevitably must be held in Scotland alone, the consequences for the United Kingdom are such that it is not unreasonable or unfair—and it should not be misunderstood in Scotland or anywhere else—that the requirements to be placed upon that referendum and the consequences that flow from it must be stricter and must be scrutinised more carefully than in a referendum in which all the voters of the United Kingdom are entitled to participate.
The Minister seemed unable to make up his mind whether the amendment was merely unnecessary or positively pernicious. He did not examine the consequences or purposes of it at all. It seeks to deal with an eventuality that may not be probable but is certainly possible and that we say should be dealt with. The eventuality is a situation in which there is no legal obligation for a repeal order to be put before the House.
If the 40 per cent. requirement is met, a commencement order will come before the House, but for any one of a number of reasons the House may decide not to pass it. What will happen? When this possibility was argued in another place, the Government's first response was to say that it was inconceivable that if the 40 per cent. requirement were met, the House of Commons would not pass a commencement order. However, that argument is wholly inconsistent with the Government's repeated assertion that the referendum is merely advisory, because even if the 40 per cent. requirement is met, it will still be for the House to decide whether to pass the commencement order and put the Bill into effect.
Quite apart from the general philosophical point about the advisory character of the referendum, let me illustrate one or two circumstances in which the House might not feel bound by the fact that a commencement order is laid after the 40 per cent. requirement has been met.
The first possibility is that there may be a doubt about whether the 40 per cent. requirement has been met. The provisions of the Bill relating to that requirement are fairly general. The Bill says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes"…".
There are two uncertainties here. First, the decision is a subjective one which is left to the Secretary of State. Secondly, the question of who is entitled to vote is, as those who oppose the provision made clear, one which is susceptible to a certain amount of argument. It raises the questions of dead voters, those who could not reasonably be expected to participate and so on. The question whether the 40 per cent. requirement has been met is not clear cut.
The House may take the view that the Secretary of State was wrong in laying an order before the House. The House may consider that it should have appeared to the Secretary of State that fewer than 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote in a referendum had voted, even though the Secretary of State had taken a different view. If the House collectively is of the opinion that the Secretary of State has misread the referendum and that the 40 per cent. requirement has not been met, the only step that it can take is to refuse to pass the commencement order.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that there will be strong feeling in the background among all Scots resident south of the border who will not be entitled to vote, and that that will become a powerful factor, at least in public opinion?

Mr. Britton: That indicates that the House of Commons will not be faced with an automatic result following the referendum that it has merely to rubber stamp.
By way of illustration, the second situation in which the House of Commons may not pass a commencement order is if the country is faced with an acute crisis of one sort or another—for example, an economic crisis. In that event the House of Commons may decide that the time is not appropriate or proper for the implementation of the Bill.
It is conceivable that that might happen, although I am not saying that it is likely. The Minister of State should not look so gleeful at the prospect of making political points based on what has just been said. It would be less than rational to ignore the possibility, however remote the right hon. Gentleman may think it is, of the country as a whole being faced with a crisis of such magnitude that it would not be right to implement the Bill.
I put forward those arguments as examples and illustrations. The real point, as the Government repeatedly tell us, is that it is for the House to decide in the light of the referendum result. The 40 per cent. requirement merely imposes a situation in which there is an obligation for the House to have an opportunity to consider repeal. However, it does not fetter the decision of the House whether, in the light of the referendum, to implement the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I was seeking earlier to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman to clear up mechanics and fact. As I understand it, the dead men are in their graves. However, is there not a problem concerning those who are entitled to two votes in normal elections—for example, students or those who are away from home. I understand that Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who undertook the Common Market referendum, feels that there are difficulties involving the assessment that a registrar may make during any month in the year as regards the electoral register. It would be convenient for us all if in reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of State cleared up that issue.

Mr. Brittan: In view of the time, I shall not seek to give a full reply. In any event, I do not think that I am either qualified or able to analyse in detail the varying circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
It is to be derived from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that the assessment whether the 40 per cent. requirement has been met is not precise and that it is possible for the Secretary of State to reach one view and for the House to come to another, quite apart from the fact that in any event it remains the responsibility of the House of Commons to decide in the light of all the circumstances whether it is right for the commencement order to be passed.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that there might be some extraordinary situation involving a national crisis that in the next year could give another place or this place the opportunity not to bring the Bill into effect through the commencement order. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell the House the crisis that he has in mind; otherwise the House might come to the view that he is scaremongering and has picked that example out of the blue to buttress a rather weak argument.

Mr. Brittan: Anyone who listened to what I said would not have thought that I was scaremongering. What I said was by way of example and was not meant as any sort of prediction. In stressing that, I was seeking to pre-empt any attempt on the past of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to use my example in any way except as an example. We might be faced with a national defence crisis. I do not expect anything of that sort, but I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman will accept that if there were a crisis in that area of our national life, the creation of the Scottish Assembly could not be something that the House would necessarily think should be done at such a moment.
The purpose of the amendment is to deal with a situation in which the House for one reason or another—the right hon. Gentleman and the Government as a whole have stressed that the discretion will remain with it and must remain with it if the referendum is to be consultative in character—decides not to pass the commencement order. The question that the other place asked us to consider was "what happens if the commencement order is placed before the House and rejected?" Does the Bill


remain in limbo? The answer that the other place came up with was that in that event it would be wrong that the Bill should remain in limbo and that the House of Commons should be given the opportunity to decide whether it wished to repeal the Bill. In those circumstances it was said that it would be right for the House of Commons to have the repeal order before it to decide what to do.
It does not necessarily follow that the House would vote for repeal. There could be a situation in which the House genuinely thought it right for the measure to remain on the statute book—for example, if the House had not supported the commencment order because there had been a national crisis or, less dramatically, if the preparations necessary for the creation of the Assembly were not sufficiently far advanced. In that event there is no doubt that the House would express the view that the measure should remain on the statute book and that it would not pass the repeal order. It would be open to the Government to come forward with it at another time.
It is also conceivable that the House could refuse to pass the commencement order for a more substantial reason of a more permanent character related to the outcome of the referendum, and that in form the vote not to pass the commencement order was in reality and in substance a vote not to enact the Bill and not to bring it into effect.
I suggest that in that event it would be far better for the House to face reality and to decide whether it favoured the repeal of the Scotland Act. It would lead to far more conflict, which is what we have consistently sought to avoid, if the measure were to stay on the statute book with the possibility of it coming up again and again for enactment.
The only obligation that the amendment puts upon the Government is for them to lay before Parliament a draft repeal order. It would then be for the House to decide what to do. What is more, it would be for the Government of the day to seek to advise their supporters, if they so wished, not to support the repeal order.
The Government should be especially familiar with that possibility. If we look back to the episode of the parliamentary boundary commission before the 1970

election, we recall one of the more squalid and disreputable episodes in the career of the present Prime Minister. At that time the independent judicially chaired Commission brought forward proposals and the Government did not wish to lay the order before the House to implement them. Eventually, the Government were threatened with action in the High Court. There was an action for mandamus to compel the Government to lay the order before the House.
What did the Government do? It was a squalid and disreputable episode that the Prime Minister might wish to forget if not to disown in his more statesmanlike moods. The Government put the order, under threat of legal action, before the House and solemnly advised their own supporters to troop through the Lobbies and vote it down. That is what happened. It is not a happy precedent but it illustrates that if the situation that I have envisaged occurs it will be open to the Government to advise their supporters against a repeal.
All that this amendment does is to provide that if the House of Commons, exercising its discretion following from the concept of a consultative referendum, decides not to pass the commencement order, it should be given an opportunity —and no more than an opportunity—to decide whether it wishes the Bill to remain on the statute book or to repeal it. Because the amendment gives the House that opportunity and fills a gap in the Bill, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Mr. George Robertson: During the lengthy debates in the House of Lords the chief Opposition spokesman, Earl Ferrers, repeatedly predicted that he might some day find himself on the wrong side of a courtroom and that he would demand that Lord McCluskey should defend him, so impressive were his arguments in the debates on the Scotland Bill. If I were in a similar position I should not necessarily jump for the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) to defend me. Those who were not actually asleep in the courtroom would be so confused that they would not be sure of my guilt or my innocence.
Despite the hon. and learned Gentleman's convoluted arguments, the motivation behind the amendment is clear. It


is a wrecking amendment. It is designed to place yet another obstacle in the path of devolution. Some noble Lords were clear in their declaration of that. Lord Wigg said that he considered the Bill to be treason, that he wished the Bill's throat to be cut and that this was one of the ways in which to do that. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said that the Lords were attempting to run away from an elected dictatorship.
The amendment adds yet another obstacle to the progress of the legislation. It does not add to or help the devolution process. The debate hinges on whether the referendum is to be of an advisory nature. The Opposition's arguments are based on the referendum being advisory. They say that all the orders can be laid on the Table and that we shall, one afternoon or late evening, be able to vote on the alternatives in one fell swoop.
The 40 per cent. limitation has been introduced into the Bill. That means that neither morally nor legally can the referendum be advisory. The more restrictions that are placed on the referendum the less likely are the people of Scotland to regard this as a purely advisory referendum.
If there are those who wish to see the Bill repealed they should not try to achieve that end by subterfuge. They should act openly and cleanly. If the Bill is to be repealed it must be done openly. The people of Scotland must realise the consequences of their actions and that the intention of those who want to see the Bill repealed is perhaps to fly in the face of a clear cut decision made by the people of Scotland in a referendum.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Do not the terms of the amendment mean clearly that the House of Commons has the full authority? All that the amendment does is to propose a procedure which can be used. It represents an option after all other matters have been closed.

Mr. Robertson: There are so many options that could follow a solemnly taken referendum that there is complete confusion. The more confusions that are placed in the path of the Bill, the less credible will be the House of Commons if it makes decisions which are against the views of the Scottish people.
It is possible that the House will decide to ignore the will of the large majority who are in favour of the Bill. I have read the debates in the Lords. The amendment is a wrecking amendment and yet another obstacle in the path of devolution. This is yet another means by which the credibility of the House and its legislation will diminish in the Ayes of the Scottish people.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Because of the time I shall be briefer than I should otherwise have been. I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that this is just another impediment placed in the way of the Scotland Bill. If I had no suspicion and no experience of the workings of the House, particularly in the last two years, I might have accepted the amendment as being purely technical. But I am sure that the Lords would not have wasted its time, in collaboration with the Conservatives and the opposition within the Labour Party, over a technicality.
The position is not entirely that described by the Minister. The strength of the Scotland Bill has been diminished over the years. We started off four years ago with election promises from both main parties. At that time there was no referendum in sight. But now we have to deal with one tripwire after another. The legislation has been filled with pits down some of which the Government have fallen. Despite these obstacles the Bill is nearing the end of its passage, but the House of Lords is still intervening and causing trouble.
The Scottish people have only to examine the passage of the Bill to see how much resistance there is to the whole concept of devolved government. The establishment in the United Kingdom seems determined to cling desperately to power, even in the face of decisions which might be taken by the Scots in a referendum.
If the House makes a further mistake by passing the amendment, and if there should be trouble over the outcome of the referendum, all the difficulties and problems that have been created unnecessarily by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and his buddies on the Conservative Benches will come home to roost. We resist the amendment.

Mr. Sillars: At first I thought that the amendment was a device to bypass the people. But it is even worse than that. It is a device to bypass the decision of the people. The Conservative Party is committed to the referendum, but what was said from the Opposition Front Bench paves the way for bypassing any decision by the people of Scotland that a Conservative Government do not like. The Conservatives say that they are committed to a referendum and to consulting the people but that if the people produce an answer that they do not like, they will find a way of overturning that view. That is unreasonable, unfair and despicable.

Division No. 279]
AYES
[5.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Doig, Peter
Kilfedder, James


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, J. D.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Nell


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edge, Geoff
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gay, Tott'ham)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Luard, Evan


Bates, Alt
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bean, R. E.
Evans, John (Newton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Beith, A. J.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Faulds, Andrew
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank


Bienkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Sooth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McKay, Allen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Gregor


Bradley, Tom
Ford, Ben
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Forrester, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Sroughton, Sir Alfred
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, (N'w'd)
Madden, Max


Buchan, Norman
Freud, Clement
Magee, Bryan


Buchanan, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mahon, Simon


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell, Ian
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Canavan, Dennis
Ginsburg, David
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Carter, Ray
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mikardo, Ian


Cartwright, John
Grocort, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooley, Frank
Morton, George Martin


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland


Cowans, Harry
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Crawford, Douglas
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ovenden, John


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Park, George


Deakins, Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Parker, John


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Parry, Robert


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Judd, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)

The House of Lords, which has not been elected by anyone, has produced a device by which 40 per cent. of the people who are eligible to vote in Scotland might still find that their view is negatived by Parliament. That is unreasonable, unfair and despicable.

Question put, That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment: —

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 211.

Radice, Giles
Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Reid, George
Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David


Richardson, Miss Jo
Snape, Peter
Watt, Hamish


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Welsh, Andrew


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, James (Pollok)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stott, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Whitlock, William


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooker, J. W.
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Rose, Paul B.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Sandelson, Neville
Thompson, George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sever, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Tilley, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tomlinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tomney, Frank
Young, David (Bolton E)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael



Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sillars, James
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. Ted Graham and


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. Thomas Cox




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McCrindle, Robert


Alison, Michael
Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacGregor, John


Arnold, Tom
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Banks, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bendall, Vivian
Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David


Benyon, W.
Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biffen, John
Gorst, John
Marten, Nell


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mather, Carol


Blaker, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maude, Angus


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick


Brittan, Leon
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Mills, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Budgen, Nick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Molyneaux, James


Bulmer, Esmond
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Burden, F. A.
Havers, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Channon, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Churchill, W. S.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan, Geraint


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles. Rear-Admiral


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockcroft, John
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cope, John
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Cormack, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Newton, Tony


Crouch, David
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nott, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hurd, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
James, David
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil


Dykes, Hugh
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Elliott, Sir William
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Eyre, Reginald
Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Fell, Anthony
Knight, Mrs Jill
Raison, Timothy


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Forman, Nigel
Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, R.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Ridsdale, Julian
Speed, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Rifkind Malcolm
Spence, John
Wakeham, John


Rippon Rt Hon Geoffrey
Spioer, Jim (W Dorset)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Roes, William (Londonderry)
Sproat, Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stanley, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Royle, Sir Anthony
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wells, John


Sainsbury, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitney, Raymond


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, William (Strealham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Younger, Hon George


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter



Sims, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)



Skeet, T. H. H.
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr, Jim Lester and


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Vaughan, Or Gerard
Mr. Michael Roberts

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Five o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July}, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Five o'clock.

Lords amendment no. 110 agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 111 to 114 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 115 to 129 agreed to.

Schedule 10

MATTERS WITHIN LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF ASSEMBLY, AND WITHIN POWERS OF SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Lords amendment: No. 130, in page 48, line 3, leave out ("Abortion.").

5.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 169 and 204.

Mr. Millan: These Lords amendments deal with abortion. I know that the subject of abortion raises very strong feelings in all quarters of the House. There are Members with varying views, many of them very strongly held.
I do not believe that these amendments are particularly concerned with the merits of abortion or the particular views that any of us may take on our present abortion legislation. Nevertheless, I recognise that there are strong views, and it is for that reason that, so far as Gov-

ernment supporters are concerned, there will be a free vote on this amendment. I make that clear right at the beginning. However, the Government's view, and certainly my own view, is that we ought to reject Lords amendment no. 130.
By way of introduction and without making a long speech about the amendments, perhaps I should explain these three amendments, because they may not be completely clear. Amendment No. 130, which simply removes the word "Abortion" from part I of schedule 10, would not in fact achieve the objective of removing abortion from the responsibilities of the Scottish Assembly. This is a complicated matter affecting not only the National Health Service but also the criminal law. Without going into detail about it, I would simply say that amendments Nos. 169 and 204, which were moved by the Government in the other place, were intended to achieve, and do achieve, the objective of providing a coherent and workable piece of legislation on abortion.
The effect of the Bill as we have it at present, taking these three amendments together, is that there is a scheme of legislative reservation and executive devolution, because, of course, the Health Service, which is responsible for abortion, is completely devolved and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to have executive reservation of abortion facilities.
Therefore, we have in the Bill at present legislative reservation. In other words, it would not be possible for the Assembly to change the law on abortion, but the actual carrying out of the legislation and the provision of facilities and so on are, of course, devolved executively as part of the National Health Service.
I make that short explanation, without going into the detail of it, to make it clear that the three amendments with which we are dealing stand together. Therefore, whatever view the House takes on the first amendment, it ought to carry through into the two subsequent amendments if we are to get something which makes sense and is workable.
Turning to the merits of the particular argument, again I do not believe that the question that we are deciding here is really a question relating to the merits of the existing abortion legislation in the United Kingdom. It is simply a question whether the Scottish Assembly, once established, should be free—as I believe it should be—to change the legislation on abortion.
For the purposes of this debate, I do not take a view whether, if there were a change, it should be towards a more liberal or a more restrictive abortion law. That issue is not relevant to this debate, although I should not be surprised if some hon. Members thought it was. What we are dealing with is the simple question whether the Assembly should have the freedom to change the law in Scotland—whether restrictively or liberally being a matter for the Assembly.

Mr. Anthony Fell: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough not to use the word "liberal"? The word "permissive" is surely much better.

Mr. Millan: I do not want to get into that sort of argument. I am trying to avoid getting into arguments about the merits of the present legislation because, as I said, I do not believe that that is the issue that we are debating.
On the principle of the matter—whether there should be devolution—my own strong view is that, because the National Health Service as a whole is to be the responsibility of the Assembly, there seems no reason why a particular part of NHS provision which may relate to abortion should be excluded.
I believe that the same is true of the criminal law, which we are devolving to Scotland. We are not providing for any reservations. On very important matters, including those with a strong moral aspect, we are under the Bill allowing

the Assembly to decide. Matters relating to capital punishment, moral questions like the law on homosexuality and many other matters are all being devolved.
I do not believe that it would be right to prevent the Assembly from taking a view on abortion in principle. In fact, in principle it would be wholly wrong, simply because the subject arouses strong emotions. The current of public opinion in Scotland may be different from the opinion here, or the Members of the Assembly may collectively take a different view from Members of this House. Whatever that view may be, it would be wrong to deny the Assembly the opportunity to apply in Scotland the law which it felt met Scottish circumstances and satisfied Scottish public opinion.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that historically the law of England and the law of Scotland on abortion were fundamentally different, and that the attempt to liberalise the law of England deliberalised the law of Scotland?

Mr. Millan: Without necessarily agreeing the whole way with the hon. and learned Gentleman, I remember very well the arguments at the time the 1967 Act was going through the House, which were to the effect that its provisions were not substantially different from the existing Scottish law. Many people took the view that there was no need for that legislation to apply in Scotland. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that from a legal point of view, however, I confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman says: that there were differences in Scottish abortion law before 1967. There is no reason in principle why there should not be differences in future if the Scottish Assembly should so decide.
Therefore, on the principle of the matter, for historic and other reasons and because the Bill will allow the Scots through their Assembly to make decisions for themselves, I believe strongly that abortion should be among the devolved subjects.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Surely one of the consequences is that we will make it possible, if we take the right hon. Gentleman's advice, to have different law north and south of the border. Which way it differs is irrelevant: it could be


much more extreme. The consequence for the National Health Service is surely highly complicated in that we should be opening or closing a back-door Gretna Green in abortion. That is the consequence which worries many of us a great deal.

Mr. Milan: With respect to the right hon. Lady, I have been dealing with the principle of the matter. I am coming to those particular worries. I wanted to put it on record that in principle I believe that abortion law as well as executive decision should be devolved to the Assembly. That is my first view, and it is the recommendation that I am making to the House.
However, I want now to come to the practical consequences. I accept that there are or could be practical consequences if the law north of the border were made substantially different from the law in the south. In particular, this raises the question of so-called cross-border traffic—that is, assuming that the law is more restrictive on one side of the border, people crossing the border to obtain an abortion which they could not obtain where they lived.
I want to deal with the two aspects of that problem—first, as it relates to the NHS. I believe that this would be a very minor problem, if it were a problem at all, in relation to the NHS. From my reading of previous debates, I judge that some hon. Members were acting under the misconception that at the moment it is possible to choose one's NHS hospital for an abortion. That is not the position at all. We all know that already, even with the law being the same throughout the United Kingdom, there are areas where all the evidence demonstrates that it is easier to obtain an abortion than in other areas. That arises for a number of reasons, including the views of the NHS consultants involved.
There are complaints that that should not be and that if we provide for one law it should be applied in exactly the same way in every part of the country. I agree that in principle that is true, but in practice it has not happened, even under one law.
When, in a particular area, for whatever reason, the law is applied more restrictively, it is not normally open to the woman who wants an abortion and whose general practitioner has certified

that she should have one to move to another NHS hospital in another part of the country. In practical terms, that does not happen. The complaint is that in those circumstances, even if she is entitled to an abortion under the law, the woman must move into the private sector.
That being so under one unified law, when we have a separate National Health Service in Scotland, with separate legislation and a separate Assembly and Executive, it is extremely unlikely that, in the event of substantial differences in the law, either Scots women would be able to come to NHS hospitals in England for abortions that they could not obtain in Scotland or that the contrary position could arise for English women if the abortion law were more liberal in Scotland. As a matter of practical NHS administration, that simply would not happen. It does not happen now, even when the law is the same. It does not happen between one area and another that is fairly close. Therefore, I do not believe that in NHS terms a separate law would have the effect of creating a great deal of cross-border traffic. Even if it did, simple administrative steps could be taken by the NHS authorities on either side of the border to prevent it.
5.30 p.m.
I have looked into the matter carefully. I do not believe that on the Health Service side of abortion there would he any really difficult practical consequences of cross-border traffic. If there were, they could easily be accommodated by simple administrative means, perhaps even if necessary by discussions between the Scottish Executive and the administration of the Health Service here in England.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If we had separate laws, and if, for example, a Scots woman were to take temporary residence in England, or vice versa, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that she would not be entitled to the normal services of a general practitioner and what stems from them?

Mr. Millan: We take the statistics on a resident and non-resident basis. If there were any attempt in the NHS to avoid the provisions of the law, it could easily be taken care of under normal administrative arrangements in the NHS. I repeat that it is not possible at present


for any patient desiring hospital treatment for any condition simply to choose his or her hospital in any part of the United Kingdom. This applies not only to abortion but to any kind of treatment.
The introduction to hospitals, to the consultant, is through the general practitioner. It is not open to people simply to choose their hospital anywhere throughout the United Kingdom. We might have slightly less trouble with waiting lists, and so on, if that were the position now, but it is not, and therefore it is a misunderstanding and a misconception to believe that on the NHS side different laws would generate a great deal of cross-border traffic. If they did, the NHS would be perfectly able to cope administratively with the problem, if it did become a problem.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: This argument is nonsensical. My right hon. Friend appears to be saying that if someone in need of urgent treatment is resident in an area for two or three weeks—and that will be the position—she cannot obtain it without going back to her own general practitioner, or that administrative arrangements can be introduced which will make that the position. It used to happen all the time in Aberdeen before 1967. My right hon. Friend should remember that.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend is not right about that. In any case, one is not dealing here with emergencies. Emergencies are one thing, but abortion operations are not normally emergencies. If my hon. Friend looks at the statistics on the reasons stated for abortions, he will see that that is so.

Mr. Fell: The right hon. Gentleman is surely getting into deep water when he says categorically that abortions are not emergencies. I am against abortion anyway, but if the person concerned needs an abortion and has gone to, say, 22 weeks, it becomes a very urgent matter. Of course the abortion becomes urgent.

Mr. Millan: With respect, the vast majority of abortion operations are not carried out in emergency circumstances. That is a fact. All that I am saying is that if there is a worry that there would be some abuse on the NHS side, if people are worried that there would be cross-

border traffic and that one Health Service rather than another would be paying for abortions for people resident in another part of the United Kingdom, my reply is that I do not believe that that would happen in the NHS. In my view, anyone who believes that it would happen does not understand the practical way in which the NHS operates at present, not only for abortions but for hospital treatment generally.
I shall say no more about the NHS. These interruptions are making my speech rather lengthier than I wanted it to be, but I wanted to put that on record as regards the NHS.
There is a difference with private practice. I accept that if there were substantially different legal provisions in Scotland from those in the rest of the United Kingdom there could be cross-border traffic in the private sector for abortions. That is not a matter concerned with Government resources and so on, which I know worried a number of hon. Members the last time we debated the subject. It is a matter strictly for the private sector.
The Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive would no doubt have views on the question whether the generation of a cross-border traffic of that kind should be discouraged or penalised, whether special provision should be made in regard to it. I doubt very much whether that would happen in practice. I doubt very much that either the United Kingdom Government with their interest in the Health Service in England, or the Scottish Executive, with its responsibility for the Health Service in Scotland, would believe that if there were cross-border traffic, steps should be taken considerably to discourage it.
There is a good deal of cross-border traffic at present, especially for the reason that I outlined earlier, namely, that despite there being the same law all over the United Kingdom there is in practice a different level of provision in different parts of the United Kingdom. But I must admit that cross-border traffic in the private sector is a possibility.
However, the private sector in the United Kingdom as a whole is tightly controlled in terms of licensing arrangements and authorities for establishments to carry out abortions and the rest. If there were


a significant problem that the Scottish Executive or the United Kingdom Government thought required attention, there would be plenty of ways in which the problem could be dealt with in one country or another.
On the NHS side, I do not believe that there is a significant argument for the non-devolution of abortion to the Assembly. On the private sector side, possible difficulties could arise which I believe could be coped with by the Assembly or the United Kingdom Government. But whatever difficulties might arise on the private sector side, if there were difficulties at all, in my view they would not outweigh the principle that on a question of such sensitivity, where views may vary between one Member and another and between one part of the country and another, we are dealing with a subject in respect of which it is very desirable in principle that we should not deny the Assembly the opportunity of taking its own view, which might be different from that of the United Kingdom House of Commons.
On that question of principle, I recommend the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendment.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We are glad that in introducing the Government's position the Secretary of State said that there was to be a free vote on this issue. On the last occasion when we debated this matter there was a clear division among the parties. I confirm that on the Opposition side we, too, regard this as a free vote issue. I therefore hope that hon. Members will look at the issue and come to what they think is the right decision for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, should devolution take place.
The Secretary of State was right to say that we are not discussing the merits of the abortion law—whether it would be right to tighten it up or to make it more liberal and permissive. The issue is simply whether the law on abortion should be a United Kingdom law or whether there should be separate laws. Throughout the discussions on this matter both in the House of Lords and in the Commons the Government have not put forward good arguments for the position that they have taken up. Nor have they been able satisfactorily to answer those who disagree with them and who take

the view that abortion should be a United Kingdom responsibility.
I am particularly disappointed that once again the Secretary of State failed to make any reference to the views of the British Medical Association, the hospital consultants or others concerned, such as the health boards. When we challenged the Under-Secretary in the Committee debate and asked what the BMA had had to say he explained that he had had a meeting with the BMA the previous day but that it had talked of other matters. Surely, in the interim, it had been possible for the Secretary of State to get some idea of what the BMA, the hospital consultants and the health boards think on this matter.
It would be unfortunate if, on a free vote issue, the House of Commons had to reach a decision without having an indication from the Secretary of State about the representations he has received from those most directly involved. I hope that we can get something from the right hon. Gentleman before we conclude.
What kind of arguments did we have from the Secretary of State in support of the Government's position? They were, frankly, not very convincing or satisfactory. First of all, he put forward the view that it would be strange to devolve the Health Service and not abortion. The right hon. Gentleman knows that because of the amendments which the Government moved, without prejudice, in the Lords, the administration—the carrying out of the abortion law—in Scotland, will be a devolved matter. The only issue is the law itself. That is, therefore, not a very strong argument.
The second argument that the right hon. Gentleman put forward was to the effect that we have different laws on other moral issues. He mentioned in particular capital punishment. It would be perfectly possible, if the Assembly goes forward, for it to have capital punishment as a penalty for murder and for England not to have such a penalty. There is, however, one fundamental difference. If, for example, the Secretary of State decided—and he might be tempted from time to time—to murder the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in Scotland, and he committed that dreadful deed, he could not and ought not to be tried in England because there might be a more


liberal law relating to murder. It is not an issue on which we can opt and say that when a person commits a murder, a traffic offence or anything else, he can go across the border to face trial.
In the same way, the divorce law is entirely different. It is not a question of being able to go across the border and get a divorce. We have long periods of residential qualification. It would not be a simple matter. In these circumstances the issue of abortion is quite different. The example of homosexuality has been mentioned. The Secretary of State must be aware that in this instance, even although we have different laws, the sheer pressure of logic has resulted in a situation in which the practice in Scotland and England is very much the same. Consequently, this question of other issues and other laws being different is not a strong argument.
The third argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that the fears of some people about cross border traffic were not real and could be disregarded. I doubt very much whether the Secretary of State is right. He got into deep water trying to answer the questions put to him on this. If we have a separate law we could well create a cross border traffic in abortion and see a repetition in Scotland or England of the sad, squalid and unsavoury traffic which took place at one time, involving about 1,000 continentals coming to Britain every week to take advantage of the more liberal abortion laws. Is this likely? Lord Kirkhill, speaking in the other place, made it quite clear that during the discussion on the Bill to amend the abortion legislation there had been a survey of opinion which showed that there was a difference of opinion on abortion north and south of the border. There is, therefore, every likelihood that we could have a difference in the law.
5.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State said that we should not worry too much because an individual cannot select a hospital. A person who goes to a doctor in Glasgow cannot, because of our administrative arrangements, say that he would rather go to a hospital in London, Manchester or Birmingham.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he found the situation before the 1967 Act—when there was a difference between English and Scottish law—acceptable and why he finds it acceptable at the moment when there is still a difference? For example, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 does not apply in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: The 1967 Act did apply to the United Kingdom, and while there was certainly a difference in practice what we are talking about is the possibility of a fundamental difference in the law. The hon. Member must be aware that this could happen. There are strong bodies of opinion which are proposing far more fundamental changes in the law. The hon. Member will be aware that there is a strong body of opinion which would like to do away with abortion, while there is another strong body of opinion which believes in abortion on demand. Both sides hold strong views. There is a possibility that we could have a major difference in the law between Scotland and England which would lead to problems.
In addition, the Secretary of State said that we should not worry too much because an individual cannot select his hospital. That surely is not the issue. An individual can temporarily go either north or south of the border and get the services of a GP and, thereby, all the other services which flow from that. If the Secretary of State has any doubts about that I refer him to what the Under-Secretary of State said when we quizzed him in Committee.

Mr. Millan: But people do not do so at the moment and there are different levels of provision. There were 30,000 non-resident abortions in England and Wales in 1977. There were fewer than 20 in Scotland. Secondly, about 850 Scots had abortions in England and Wales last year. That was in the private sector. It does not happen in the National Health Service. There is no cross-border traffic of the sort that is feared by the hon. Gentleman and obviously by others within the NHS. If such a thing were likely to happen it would happen now and that is not the case.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I also hope that


he will look at what his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said when we quizzed him about this in Committee. He was answering a question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). He said:
I was coming to that point. My hon. Friend said that he had fears about the possibility … that people might not be able to move back and forth between the various health authority areas in the United Kingdom. There is no possibility that they will not be able to do so."—[Official Report, 11th January 1978; Vol. 941, c. 1816.]
Although the law is the same at present, the Secretary of State must be aware that if we had laws which were substantially different there would be nothing to stop an individual taking up temporary residence in the other country, going to a GP and getting all the consequential treatment. Is the Secretary of State saying, for example, that if a Scots girl went to London, stayed there and visited her GP, she would be denied services which are available under the law of England?

Mr. Millan: If someone has a perfectly legitimate reason for moving from one part of the country to another of course he receives the full range of medical treatment wherever he goes. What I am trying to say to the House and to the hon. Gentleman—and I wish that he would direct his attention to the real problem, which is in the private sector —is that no one who is denied an abortion in Scotland at the moment will move to England or to Wales, take up temporary residence and get a GP and all that goes with that to get an abortion in an NHS hospital there. What happens in practice is that such a person goes to the private sector. That is what would happen after devolution.
There are problems, I agree. I acknowledged them in my opening remarks. But they are not problems in the National Health Service. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State must be well aware that going to the private sector for an abortion is not something that is open to the majority of the population. It is very expensive indeed, and it is certainly not available to many of those who are seeking abortion. The Secretary of State may squirm, but he cannot dodge this, because he said that there could be a problem. He said that

of course someone can go elsewhere. He must face this question and give straight answers. He said "If there were a problem, we could take administrative steps to stop it." What administrative steps has he in mind? Has he in mind, for example, that anyone going to a general practitioner would be asked "Are you a Scot?" or "Are you English?" Is the Secretary of State suggesting that if a doctor makes a referral to a hospital or to a social worker, the same question should be asked? The Secretary of State cannot continue to dodge this.

Mr. Millan: Under the United Kingdom law we already take the information about residence; therefore these so-called administrative problems are not problems at all. The problem is not within the National Health Service. I must continue to repeat that.

Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State is right in saying that the problem is not within the National Health Service at the present time, but there was a substantial difference between the law of Scotland and England, and it would be a problem in the National Health Service unless he took his so-called administrative steps to deal with it. I am asking him to say what these administrative steps would be. Will he go further than the Bill and say that there will not be the same right of equal treatment north and south of the border?
The Secretary of State is giving the impression that this is not a problem. Suppose that we had, for the sake of argument, a Bill passed in the Scottish Assembly to introduce what we might loosely call tight abortion laws. Suppose, further, that in England the position were a lot easier, or more liberal, or more permissive, depending on the word that is used. Is the Secretary of State saying that it would not be possible for a girl from Glasgow to take up temporary residence in London and to get her rights under English law from the National Health Service in England? Unless we are to erect a genuine barrier and to say that people shall not have the same rights in the NHS north and south of the border, this problem could well arise.
The Secretary of State is right in saying that at the present time it is mainly a private sector problem, but he must


face the fact that, if there were a substantial difference in the law north and south of the border, this would become a very major problem indeed. He cannot deny it.
Why does not the Secretary of State give us the views of the British Medical Association? Is the BMA as confident, satisfied and complacent as he seems to be about the problem, or is it not the case that the BMA is very concerned indeed about the Government's proposals?

Mr. Fairbairn: In support of the question that my hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State, can he guarantee that there would not be a traffic if there were a fundamental difference in the law? Can he explain why before 1967, when there was an absolute and fundamental difference between the law of Scotland and the law of England, such a traffic did not occur?

Mr. Taylor: My understanding is that the difference between the laws was not as fundamental in practice as my hon. and learned Friend is suggesting, and that in addition the prospect of a more fundamental change is a very real one at present.

Mr. Fairbairn: I will tell my hon. Friend what the law was before 1967. The law of abortion in Scotland was the same as the law relating to all other medicine. Abortion was an operation which a doctor, if he thought it appropriate, could carry out without fear of a criminal charge of assault. That was the common law of Scotland. The law of England, under two Acts, was very restrictive. If that is not a fundamental difference, what is?

Mr. Taylor: I think that my hon. and learned Friend will accept, on the basis of the statistics of abortions north and south of the border, that before the 1967 Act the number of abortions carried out in Scotland was very limited indeed, irrespective of what he may say about law and practice.
Perhaps the Secretary of State, in addition to dealing with the question that I have put to him, will say whether he thinks that there is any ground at all for the other argument that he has put forward. I believe, and those directly con-

cerned in the profession believe, that if we have a separate law, or the possibility of that, or if we make provision for a separate law on abortion north and south of the border, we may create a very dangerous situation and a possible shambles.
It is because abortion is a subject on which we have strong individual views that the Conservative Opposition consider it appropriate to have a free vote, but I think that the Secretary of State has a duty to answer some straight questions before we vote on the issue. First, what is the view of the BMA, the health boards and the consultants? Will he tell the House? Secondly, what precisely did the Secretary of State mean by the administrative steps which could be taken in the national health sector to stop what he referred to as the possibility of abuse?
Either people have the right to obtain treatment north and south of the border without restriction, as the Under-Secretary of State said in a previous debate, or they do not. It is a red herring for the Secretary of State to talk about choosing one's hospital. That is not the issue. If there were separate laws, individuals north and south of the border would be entitled, by means of taking up temporary residence, to obtain full facilities and full benefit.
I believe that the right answer in this case is to make provision for a uniform law on abortion both north and south of the border for the United Kingdom. Let us make the decision, according to our respective views. As we know, there are those who want to tighten the law and those who want to loosen it. But if we go ahead and have the possibility of a major divergence between Scotland and England we may not only create administrative and social problems; I believe that we may create the basis of very real conflict between Scotland and England.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: It is not often that I rise to agree fully with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Indeed, it is not often that I rise to agree with the BMA, because there are, I understand, profound reservations in the medical profession about what the Government have proposed. I confess that I am perhaps the moving spirit, if I may put it in that way, behind the Lords amendments, and it is not often that I agree with another


place either; therefore this is a rare occurrence for me.
As I have indicated, I do not accept the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend today. The argument that legislation on abortion is on all fours with other legislation on medical matters seems to me to be absurd. No one will change the law on tonsillectomy or appendectomy, or on any other medical matter, save in the areas that we regard as being as much moral as medical. This is a unique issue, and it is absurd to argue that this is on all fours with the rest of the National Health Service.
When my right hon. Friend says that there will be no abortion trafficking, I simply do not believe this to be the case. It used to occur when the laws were different. It did not occur to any great extent, perhaps, but I know that it used to occur. I have often heard it said in England more than 10 years ago that Aberdeen was the abortion capital of the realm. That was an indication of the way in which the Scottish law was interpreted in Aberdeen.
I believe that there is bound to be abortion trafficking, and I believe that it will happen under the National Health Service as well as in the private sector. There is no dissent about its happening in the private sector. I was very disturbed to hear my right hon. Friend suggest this afternoon, apparently, that if his argument were correct, and trafficking could not happen in the NHS, there was not a very serious problem. Most of us on the Labour Benches do not believe that we should change the law in such a way that people in whichever country, England or Scotland, with the power of the purse can procure an abortion, while those who have not the power of the purse are unable to do so. I think it would have been better if my right hon. Friend had not put forward his argument—particularly towards his hon. Friends—concerning the NHS.
I heard the speech from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to which the hon. Member for Cathcart referred. My hon. Friend said exactly the words that the hon. Gentleman quoted. My hon. Friend gave the House a solemn assurance that there would be parity of treatment in either country, for any resident of the other country, with that which would have obtained in that

resident's own country for any disease, ailment or necessity. No reservation was expressed on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
When my right hon. Friend says "In this case we can block off the danger by administrative means", I must say that I find these Kafkaesque phrases very disturbing. By what administrative means are we proposing to change the law of the land? That is the task of this place, not the task of Secretaries of State or of the Scottish Executive. Therefore, I do not think that that is a very winning argument either.
6.0 p.m.
I have become more disturbed, rather than less, as this debate has progressed. As my right hon. Friend knows, in my case it has nothing to do with not trusting the Scots. We have had that argument before. As he knows, among English Labour Members I have been the arch-exponent of devolution. I trust the Scots totally. But what I do not believe is that it makes sense to have two different laws on this issue on each side of the border. We could have either a restrictive change or a liberalising or permissive change in England. There does not have to be a change in the law in Scotland. The law in Scotland could remain the same. Either way, it encourages people to move in order to evade the law in their own country of residence. To my mind, that brings the law in both countries into disrepute, and that is why I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in this amendment.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Several times in his speech the Secretary of State made a very important statement of principle. Although the debate is to be concluded by a free vote on both sides of the House, the principle which he asserted, he asserted as a principle which the Government as a Government maintain and which, therefore, presumably carries the collective responsibility of his colleagues. That principle is that it was not merely acceptable, but even desirable, that on such a subject as this the law should not be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State mentioned other subjects in this connection. As has been mentioned, one was capital punishment, but another was the law relating to homosexuality. No


doubt he would include the law relating to divorce.
This is an assertion of particular importance to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen representing constituencies in Northern Ireland. I assume that the Secretary of State will have taken his colleague the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland into consultation, because this Session we have seen the Government impose by order upon Northern Ireland the law in relation to divorce, a law made in the rest of the United Kingdom by free vote on a private Member's motion. The Government have done this on the ground that it was a necessity of public policy, and inherently desirable, that the law in that respect should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom.
That is a proposition which it will not be possible again to pray in aid. For example, when we come to consider the law relating to homosexuality, it will not be possible for the Government to propose to change the law in Northern Ireland on that matter by order, that is to say, upon the Government's responsibility with the Whips on, on the ground that on these subjects the law ought to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom.
This debate primarily concerns Scotland, but the principle enunciated over and over again was enunciated as a United Kingdom principle. The Secretary of State did not refer to Great Britain, he referred to the United Kingdom. I take only a moment or two of the time of the House to draw the attention of the House to the far-reaching consequences of the principle on this sort of subject which the Secretary of State has asserted in the House this afternoon.

Mr. William Hamilton: I want to refer for a moment to a remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), when he went out of his way to say that he was the great arch-exponent of devolution. I remember the speech that he made yesterday, when he said that he was very much in favour of devolution and democracy. The speech that he has made this afternoon flew in the face of that. He was saying that he was in favour of devolution, but was not prepared to concede

the right of the Scots to determine their own law in relation to abortion.
I take completely the opposite view, both on devolution and on democracy. I believe that once the die is cast, once one gets the Assembly, it has a perfect right to determine what Scottish opinion will be on abortion, on homosexuality, on capital punishment and on all these moral and religious issues, and then legislate accordingly. Whether or not the law is contrary to what the law is south of the border. That is what this debate is about. If we are not prepared to accept differences, what on earth are we discussing? The whole point of this Bill is to create differences. It is to enable the Scots to be different, and they were different before the 1967 Act. I do not think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) appreciates the enormous difference.
When we had the debate on the Wolfenden report on various social matters, the Scots did not realise that their law was fundamentally different from, and very often better and more liberal than, the English law. Those of us representing Scottish constituencies frequently received letters saying "Keep us out of it." We had to explain that we were not even in it. The SPUC organisation in Scotland did not realise, and I do not think that it yet realises, that before 1967 the law in Scotland was more liberal than the 1967 Act itself.
I say to the hon. Member for Cathcart that his speech was devoted entirely to his contempt of Scottish opinion. He was saying that the Scots were not fit to take their own decisions on a matter such as abortion, and that that decision had to remain down here. Why should it? Public opinion in Scotland can be different. Traditions can be different in Scotland. Why should not that be reflected in their legislation? My goodness, the hon. Gentleman called in aid the views of the BMA. When the BMA recommends things, we Labour Members begin to suspect. Our reaction is completely different. Had we accepted the views of the BMA, there would never have been a National Health Service at all. When the Health Service was instituted in the first instance, it was in the teeth of opposition from the BMA. Therefore, let not the hon. Gentleman pray in aid the views


of the BMA in this or in any other matter. We, as politicians, have the right to make these decisions. Of course, we listen to the views of the BMA, the consultants and everyone else. But we are sent here to take decisions in the light of all the information that we get.
I come to the question of cross-border traffic. I must express my alarm at what my right hon. Friend said about the inability of a patient within the Health Service to go where he likes within the Health Service. Geographically and financially, all other considerations restrict that right. Nevertheless, it is the case that even now women from various parts of Scotland where abortion law is practised restrictively come down to hospitals in London, where the law is less restrictive, to get their treatment, and not only in the private sector. If one knows the right doctors or the right consultants, one will get one's abortion in an NHS hospital in London. I do not know whether there are any statistics—

Mr. Millan: I have statistics.

Mr. Hamilton: Then my right hon. Friend will know that Scottish women who have been unable to get abortions in Scottish NHS hospitals have come down to London to get an abortion within an NHS hospital. I applaud their right to come down if they so wish. Be that as it may, the abuses are now occurring in the private sector, and they will occur whether or not we pass a different law on abortion in Scotland. The private sector will exist whether the law is comparable on the two sides of the border, and it is up to each of the Governments —Parliament down here and the Assembly in Scotland—to deal with those abuses as they arise. Again, they will decide themselves how to deal with these matters.
Basically, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, it having been decided to set up an Assembly and that it shall be elected by the Scots, the Scots have a perfect right to decide their own abortion law. I hope that their abortion law will be at least as liberal as that south of the border, and I suspect that it will be more so.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr.

Hamilton), and I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was right to draw attention to the very fundamental difference which existed between Scotland and England and Wales before the passage of the 1967 Act.
My constituency lies in the area of what is now the Grampian health board. It was at that time in the area of the Aberdeen hospitals board, and for hospital treatment my constituents came under that area. For abortion and all other gynaecological matters they came under the influence of Sir Dugald Baird, to whom we owe a great debt for his very high social aims as well as for what he achieved in his expertise as a doctor and physician.
We had this difference before, and we existed with that difference. Earlier in the debate, I heard one hon. Member describe Aberdeen as the abortion capital of Europe. It was never that. The practice was quite different in Aberdeen because of the difference in Scottish law. But it never became the abortion capital of Europe. That underlines what the Secretary of State said, because even if there are differences they do not necessarily bring the kind of result which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) tried to persuade us would happen.
Basing the argument purely on what happened when the abortion law was different in different parts of the United Kingdom, I can contemplate with confidence a different abortion law in different parts of the United Kingdom in the future.

Mr. W. Benyon: Does not my hon. Friend accept that at that time the awareness was very much less? People did not realise that the difference existed. Therefore, the effect on numbers was very small.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I disagree with my hon. Friend. Why was Aberdeen described as the abortion capital of Europe if people did not understand that there was a difference? The difference was recognised. I remember having to defend it to colleagues in this House and to others, and, therefore, I do not think that that is true.
When we had this difference in the law —and this again is one of the reasons why I defend the Bill as it was originally drafted, allowing for a difference between Scotland and England and Wales—and the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) introduced his Bill which became the 1967 Act, it was introduced in a way which changed the law completely and in many ways got it wrong because it moved too far from one position to a new one.
6.15 p.m.
Under Scottish law and under the common law of Scotland, we were able to see certain changes taking place. We were able to see certain different practices in moral matters—and I accept that abortion is not only a medical matter; it is a moral one as well. We saw these changes taking place because the basic law was different in Scotland from that in England and Wales. I believe that we would have moved more generally in Scotland—and not just in Aberdeen—to a more liberal law in relation to abortion without requiring dramatic changes in legislation. Then the law would have followed to some extent what was a natural movement in the desire of people to sec a change in the law. The position in Scotland allowed that to happen. That was one of the advantages of having this difference in Scotland.
We are dealing with moral issues, and again this is demonstrated in relation to sexual offences. Homosexuality is another area where in Scotland we have seen growing up certain practices. England had to legislate to cope with them, whereas under the law of Scotland these practices were allowed and did not become a criminal offence with the law as it was at the time. Without trying to be facetious, I might point out that, in the period before England changed its law with the Sexual Offences Act, I do not think that any people moved from England and Wales to Scotland because the law happened to be different in Scotland.
I come back to the fundamental position, which is very much the same as that taken up by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. If we are having an Assembly, which, unlike the hon. Member, I support, I believe that we should give the Assembly the freedom to decide its own

policy and its own legislation in these matters. This is important not only because the Assembly should have its freedom but because of the different legal systems in Scotland and in England and Wales. They have worked in the past. We must recognise this in the future.
Moral issues such as this are matters about which people feel strongly. I believe that people in Scotland, through their Assembly, should have the opportunity to express their views on these moral issues in their own legislation rather than legislating in a blanket way for the whole of the United Kingdom.
One of the reasons why we have the pressure for devolution and for an Assembly is that there is a demand not only in Scotland but in the United Kingdom for variety in the way we treat different problems in the United Kingdom. We want variety in this as in other matters in the laws that we pass with respect to moral issues and our views on them. Therefore, I believe that the Government should be supported in their proposal to reject this Lords amendment.

Mr. Dewar: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I shall be voting to devolve abortion at the end of this debate. I shall do so because of my general prejudice that this is the sort of issue which ought properly to be within the remit of the Assembly.
I recognise that abortion is an issue which raises very strong emotions, and I recognise the genuine anxieties advanced by hon. Members on the subject of cross-border traffic. For all that, however, looking at the legislative shape of the Assembly's remit, it is very difficult to chip abortion out of it in any coherent or logical way and leave it as some sort of constitutional flotsam on the agenda of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House. I might say in passing that if it is to remain in this House, it ought logically to go to a Minister of Health rather than stay with the Secretary of State. However, that is another issue.
My main objective is to reiterate the argument that in this area of health or crime—it seems to me that abortion can be looked at in terms of a criminal offence or in terms of health—it seems


properly to be a devolved function. After all, we have in schedule 10 all of the National Health Service and family planning. To remove abortion seems to be to leave it floating in a sort of limbo.
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) when he asks who, after all, would want to make different laws for tonsilitis or appendicitis. It is not a fair parallel. A much fairer parallel was made in the House of Lords—namely, that abortion is a crime in the context of which this argument is being conducted and that the criminal law of Scotland has also been devolved to the Assembly. Therefore, on whichever side of the line it is placed—even if it is right on the line—it falls essentially in the functions which should be devolved to Edinburgh.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the hon. Member comment on what was said about the effect of having a different law in this matter—that British citizens would be forbidden administratively to move to a part of the United Kingdom in order to benefit from a different law.

Mr. Dewar: It does not mean that it would be administratively forbidden. What the Secretary of State said was that if there was cross-border traffic which was causing alarm—he suggested, with good reason, that this might turn out to be an illusory fear—and if that fear came in a particularly acute and substantial form, it would be a matter on which this place and the Assembly could get together to see what solutions could be found. It is really pushing the boat out too far for the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) to say that inevitably this kind of administrative action would follow.
The fault of the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was basically that we have had over a long period a fundamental difference in the law between Scotland and England. This was the case long before 1967. It did not cause a great deal of anxiety and distortion then. Since 1967 we have had the Abortion Act. This gives a common framework, but even then there has been a difference in the law north and south of the border.
For example, there is the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which has had some peripheral effect in England on the

law of abortion. One of the central arguments over abortion at present is the 28 weeks' termination and whether it should be reduced to 20 weeks. In England that is a relevant argument, but in Scotland it is relevant in a quite different way. At present there is no 28-week limit in Scotland. If one has an abortion, which has been sanctioned under the 1967 Act, it can be done in the twenty-ninth or thirtieth week. That might be unlikely, but I use it as an example of the fact that even at present the laws are very substantially different in Scotland.
I cannot see why at the end of the day it should be so wrong for the Scottish Assembly to have charge of abortion. Whether it makes a good job of it when it gets down to work is something that we could all argue about. But why should it be wrong for the Assembly to have responsibility for abortion when it is right that it should have responsibility for criminal law generally and for areas such as homosexual law reform?
The point was made by the hon. Member for Cathcart that the fundamental difference between the law north and south of the border was one that could not be contemplated as an administrative strategem. An agreement about prosecution policy has been brought in in Scotland to bridge the gap between English and Scots law. I agree that it may well be that the Assembly, looking at abortion, might say that there would be dangers in opening up gaps between England and Scotland, and for that reason it would not follow certain lines that were urged upon it by pressure groups on one side or other of the argument. I would expect the Assembly to give great weight to that. Probably it will be an important factor in the debates leading to a final decision in the Assembly.
To say, however, that that is something of which the Assembly must have cognisance is not a conclusive argument for saying that it should not have legislative competence in this field. I agree that devolution is about giving to the people of Scotland, through their elected representatives, the right to choose in certain devolved areas. If one of those areas is the criminal law and another is the Health Service, to take out something that is central to those areas and


leave it as some sort of odd tag end at Westminster is ill advised and unfortunate.
I suspect that I shall disagree with what is done in the Scottish Assembly. But, as someone who believes strongly in devolution, I shall have to try to win the arguments back home in Scotland. The fact that we may disagree with the Assembly is not a reason for saying that we should retreat from the devolution principle, which this amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Millan: With the leave of the House I shall take a few moments to answer some of the points that have been raised in this debate. On the question of principle, I do not believe that the arguments point in any way—and I have heard nothing this afternoon to convince me otherwise—other than to allowing these matters to be decided by the Scottish Assembly.
The fact that these are matters of controversy, and that there may be differences of view between one part of the United Kingdom and another, makes it all the more desirable that, when Scotland has a democratically elected Assembly with legislative powers, it should be able to make up its own mind about the law of abortion as it relates to Scotland. I stand by that principle, and I do not believe it has been seriously questioned by anything that any hon. Members have said today.
Today's arguments have all been about the practical consequences of the differences between the law as it applies north and south of the border. But it has been pointed out that we had these differences in the law in the past and they have not given rise to all the difficulties that hon. Members seem to fear.
There is a good deal of myth about what happened in Scotland before the 1967 Act. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) explode the myth that Aberdeen was the great abortion centre of the United Kingdom. That just was not so.
The number of abortions in the old north-east regional board area is not the highest in Scotland. Thus, there is a good deal of myth making about the whole business of abortion. That is why

in principle I believe that it is a matter for the Assembly to decide.
Even on the practical side, I do not believe that there will be any substantial difficulties arising either now or in the future for the National Health Service. In any case, the actual practice of abortion in Scotland at present is substantially different from that in England. I shall give some figures to demonstrate the absurdity of the fears that have been expressed today.
In England and Wales in 1977, out of 133,000 abortions more than 80,000 took place in the private sector. In Scotland, out of a total of 7,283 abortions only 195 were performed in the private sector. That is what happens with one law in the United Kingdom. The divergence could not be more acute.
The total number of non-residents of Scotland who had abortions in that country was only 18 in 1977. In England and Wales, however, 30,762 non-residents had abortions. Again, the actual working of the legislation is entirely different in Scotland from its working in England and Wales. This has something to do with the different background, social conditions and attitudes of Scotland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. It also has something to do with the different organisation of the Health Service and the lower proportion of medical care provided by the private sector. All these differences are there now, even with one law applying to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Given these massive differences now, it does not seem sensible to say that, because there is the possibility of difficulties over cross-border traffic, which could arise in any case only in the private sector if the laws between Scotland and England were substantially different, that should he allowed to outweigh the general principle that the Scottish Assembly, in the light of Scottish opinion, should decide this matter for itself.
I believe that it would be a substantial derogation of devolution in an area in which there are strong feelings, and where it is legitimate that these feelings should have different legislative expression, if we were to deny the Scottish Assembly the ability to make up its mind on this difficult issue.
It is for these reasons of principle, but taking account of the practical situation—

It being half-past Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 282.

[For Division List No. 280, see c. 471]

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords Amendment: No. 131, in page 48, line 34, leave out ("Aerodromes").

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take the following amendments:

On Lords Amendment No. 131, the Government's consequential amendment to the Bill, in page 67, line 50, at end insert—
'Civil Aviation Act 1978 (c. 8), sections 8 and 9, Not included.'

Lords amendment no. 144, in page 51, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.

Lords amendment no. 155, in page 54, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
("The Civil Aviation Act 1948 (c. 67), section 28. No included.")

Lords amendment no. 170, in page 59, leave out lines 17 to 19.

Lords amendment no. 183, in page 61, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 41 and insert—
("The matters dealt with in section 29A and those dealt with in section 29, so far as it relates to section 29A. are included.")

The Government's amendments to the Bill in lieu thereof: in page 48, line 34, at end insert:
'Insulation of nearby buildings from noise and vibration attributable to the use of aerodromes'.

In page 61, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 41 and insert—
'Not included, except so far as relating to the insulation of buildings near aerodromes against aircraft noise and vibration and except for—

(a) the matters dealt with in sections 30 to 32; and
(b) those dealt with in sections 6 to 11. 13, 14, 16 to 20, 34 and 36, so far as relating to the operation of aerodromes.'.

Lords amendment no. 195, in page 65, leave out lines 36 and 37.

Lords amendment no. 198, in page 67, leave out lines 28 and 29.

Lords amendment no. 217, in schedule 13, page 76, leave out lines 7 and 8.

Lords amendment no. 219, in page 76, leave out lines 11 and 12.

Lords amendment no. 226, in schedule 15, page 78, line 44, column 2, at end insert— ("Aerodromes").

Mr. Ewing: The amendment was tabled in another place by Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Campbell of Croy and was passed by a majority of 27 votes. The Government moved amendments on Report to tidy up the Bill following the removal of aerodromes from part I of schedule 10. I should make clear that this was done without prejudice to anything the Government might do subsequently to restore aerodromes to the list of devolved matters. This, basically, is what we now seek to do.
The Government believe that it is right that the Assembly should have responsibilities for aerodromes in Scotland as part of its wide-ranging responsibilities for communications, transport and physical infrastructure. To deny this matter would create a gap which could affect its ability to plan transport services in a co-ordinated way.
The Government consider that the Assembly should be given the powers to establish and maintain aerodromes, including those owned by local authorities, and also the power to acquire land for use as aerodromes and other ancilliary functions such as making byelaws. As regards the management of aerodromes, the Assembly should take over ministerial powers in relation to local authority and privately owned aerodromes immediately the relevant provisions of the Scotland Bill come into force.
6.45 p.m.
The British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority are a different matter. Between them they manage a substantial number of the aerodromes in Scotland. In the Government's view, to deny the Assembly any responsibilities in respect of these bodies would be to hamper its ability to create a coherent policy towards aerodromes and towards transport in general, but the Government recognise that these bodies have invaluable experience in running airports and regard it as important that the Assembly should have the opportunity to benefit from that experience. So the Government propose that devolution of powers in respect of these bodies should be delayed until the Assembly, the authorities themselves and the Government have had an opportunity to discuss arrangements. This effect can be achieved by listing the authorities in schedule 13 and thereby making them subject to a clause 64 order. Such an order has to be requested by the Assembly and may be made only after consultations with the body concerned. The order has to be made by the Secretary of State and is subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
That outlines the Government's view of what should be devolved to the Assembly. There remain the matters which could be held to be included in the term aerodromes but for which the Government do not think the Assembly should have responsibility. These include, in particular, the regulation-making powers of the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of aerodromes, the policing of airports and the control of pollution from aircraft. This latter matter includes the control of aircraft noise, although the Government think it right that the Assembly should have the power to create schemes for the insulation of buildings in the vicinity of aerodromes affected by the use of such aerodromes.
I hope that this explanation makes clear that we are, broadly, talking about the devolution of powers in respect of an aerodrome itself and its management. The Assembly's responsibilities will not, for example, extend to related but separate matters such as flight safety or air traffic control, which are best dealt with on a uniform basis throughout Great Britain.
The Government believe that this represents a satisfactory division of responsibilities between those matters essentially of concern to the people of Scotland and those which have wider implications and which it is proposed to reserve. The Government therefore ask the House to disagree with amendment no. 131.
Before concluding, I should make clear the Government's view on the other amendments under discussion. We disagree with amendment no. 144 which removes the entry in part II of schedule 10 which reserved the regulatory role of the Civil Airports Authority in relation to aerodromes; and the protection of aircraft and aerodromes against acts of violence. We also disagree with amendments nos. 155, 170, 183, 195, 198, 217, 219 and 226.
In asking the House to reinstate aerodromes, I should mention that the Government amendments will make the Bill technically correct in its treatment of aircraft noise. It is the Government's policy, as I mentioned earlier, that the Assembly should have the power to create schemes for the insulation of buildings near aerodromes, but that it should have no powers in relation to the control of noise, pollution or vibration. The Bill as it left this House did not achieve this result. The three Government amendments, one of which is in respect of the Civil Aviation Act 1978, put this right.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the position that the Assembly will have responsibility for buildings near airports and insulation regulations but not for noise at airports?

Mr. Ewing: Noise pollution or the level of noise is a reserved matter. That comes under the 1978 Act. It has been reserved on a United Kingdom basis. It is felt that matters such as flight control, air traffic control and flight safety are better dealt with on an all-Britain basis than devolved. In fairness to my hon. Friend, I should say that he has it right.

Mr. George Younger: I rise to disagree with the Government and to express the hope that even at this late hour the House will agree with the amendments that were made in another place.
I am genuinely surprised that the Government have tried to press their point of view in dealing with the amendments.


If any amendments were made in another place that the Government were able to accept without any detectable damage to the principle of their Bill, surely the amendments before us are in that category. I hope to be able to explain why I take that view in a fairly short time.
Let us consider the principal aim of the Bill. Surely the object is to devolve to the Assembly those matters that are clearly of a local Scottish significance to those in Scotland alone, or largely to those in Scotland. The whole purpose of the Bill is to bring decision-making on such matters that affect the Scottish people within a Scottish forum where they can make their decisions.
We are concerned with a part of air transport. It is a part but only a part. It seems self-evidently a subject that involves a much wider forum than the interests of people within Scotland, businesses within Scotland or the affairs of Scotland alone. There are differences of degree even within air transport. There are air services that are entirely internal to Scotland. If the proposal had been to devolve only those parts of the running of airports, I could have seen some logic in it. However, the devolving of responsibility for airports, the bulk of the traffic of which consists of services that come from without Scotland, whether from London, Manchester or places in Europe and elsewhere, seems to be a complete negation of the whole principle of devolution. That is so whether we are pro-devolution or very much against it. I am surprised that Ministers have decided that they cannot give way on this issue.
Their Lordships made a powerful case in a short debate. It is necessary to turn to some of the arguments that were deployed and to some of the details which I hope were deployed within the Government before their decision was put before us.
Air travel goes beyond our interests in Scotland. The majority of the services that we use come into and out of Scotland from elsewhere. Many of them are connected with international air transport agreements. They go far wider than the consideration of British interests alone. They have to be arranged by negotiation with outside countries. Scotland is not a party to those negotiations and will not be a party even after the Bill is enacted. It may be for that reason that

the Government have made it clear that they are not proposing to devolve air services. There is no question of that happening. That must be why they have confined devolution only to the management of airports.
What principle are the Government adopting? When I gave that question consideration, it struck me straight away that the principle that they might be following is that the infrastructure of transport in Scotland should be devolved. The Under-Secretary of State touched on what I imagine is the basis of the argument. It may be the Government's view that the infarstructure of transport should he devolved, even if the operation of it is not included. However, the hon. Gentleman has not begun to follow that principle.
We have the proposal that the management of airports should be devolved as part of the infrastructure of transport, but no one has suggested devolving the infrastructure of the railways. I see no difference in principle between the infrastructure of the railways and that of airports, apart from their being different modes of transport. No one has suggested devolving the infrastructure of the docks, except for the smaller ports dealing with Scottish ferry services, agriculture or fisheries alone. No one has suggested devolving the infrastructure of the Glasgow, Clyde or Forth port docks, which are part of the infrastructure of transport. Therefore, it cannot be the Government's principle that the infrastructure of transport should be devolved. That completely demolishes the Minister's argument that it is necessary for these matters to be devolved so that the Assembly is able to co-ordinate decision making on the infrastructure of transport. That is not to be within the Assembly's power under the Government's proposals.

Mr. J. Grimond: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest as it is of some importance to my constituency. Will he tell us what is his interpretation, group 10 of schedule 10, which states:
Provision of public passenger and freight transport services within Scotland",
is a devolved matter?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that


intervention as it gives me courage to think that he was as puzzled as I was after reading that part of the schedule.
It seems that there is some ambiguity in group 10 in respect of air transport. It seems that if we are to take the wording literally it could apply to the provision of public passenger transport by rail as well as by road. As far as I know, it is common ground that the Government are not proposing to devolve the operations of the railways. I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman by giving my definition. However, I, too, have been puzzled by the wording of the schedule. I do not know how much or how little it includes. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an explanation.
I shall not go into the details of considering whether it is better to run airports locally or to have them run by a large national organisation. We have considered that issue on many occasions and I remember making my maiden speech on the introduction of the Airports Authority Act 1965, which set up the airports authority in the first place.
The fashionable view of 15 years ago was that it was an excellent idea to have as many airports as possible run by municipalities. That has not proved to be an outstandingly successful method. We have been retreating from it in recent years and have tended to run airports in larger units because of the benefits that are alleged to stem from that. It is my position that there are those benefits.
The British Airports Authority runs the four main airports in Scotland and those in the United Kingdom while the Civil Aviation Authority runs, extremely efficiently, the eight smaller Highlands and Islands airports in Scotland. Both authorities do an excellent job in their own way. They are both big enough to offer a career structure and efficient management services. They are both able to do this in different ways which seem to give satisfaction to customers.
7.0 p.m.
We approach this strange part of the Bill from the position that the running of airports in Scotland appears to be generally satisfactory to customers. From my experience of the Highlands and Islands and of the British Airports Authority

airports, including Prestwick, I believe that they do a good job.
The airports consultative committees which represent all the British Airports Authority airports have been asked for their views. Although I have not personally communicated with each of them, I understand that all the consultative committees say that they do not wish airports to be devolved in the way proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: I have a letter from an airport consultative committee which says that it regards the proposition as intolerable and urges us to use all our influence to ensure that civil aviation is excluded from the Bill.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that all the airport consultative committees have expressed such a view. It is important that we should know. If so, the Government are going ahead against the advice not only of the Lords but of the consultative committees and the airports users.
As was discovered 10 to 15 years ago when airports were handed over to the municipalities, the running of airports is not something that comes by nature. It is a technical and difficult business. Expertise is required. In order to attract decent staff and experts, the organisation must be large enough to offer a career structure. Many of the technical services associated with the running of airports cannot be provided on an individual basis. That is why certain parts are not being devolved. I refer to the air traffic control services, which will continue to be covered centrally, and the policing of airports, which was recently handed over to the local police forces. These services will not be devolved.
We are left with a vitally important part of the running of airports—the function of marketing. More and more, that is part of the job of effective airport management. Much of the British Airports Authority management time is devoted to the skill of marketing and of attracting traffic to some airports and, in the case of Heathrow and others, of trying to divert traffic. It is essential that all these functions should be based as widely as possible. An overall view is essential.
We need a large spread of airports run by the same authority so that deals can be worked out with foreign countries and with this country's airlines, so that off-peak traffic, air training traffic and charter traffic go to the airports which are under-used and at times of the day when they are under-used. This requires a sophisticated policy involving the tailoring of landing fees and special arrangements for different customers. I can see no advantage in breaking up this system and in devolving it to a new and inexperienced legislature the main concern of which is the internal running of part of the United Kingdom. At present we have two skilled and national organisations—the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority—which have a widespread experience and a wider view than that which involves Scotland alone.
Lord McCluskey and the Minister of State said that there were other reasons for having a close link between the Assembly and the airports. They both mentioned tourism and planning. Of course, many tourists go through airports and much of the traffic during the summer is provided by tourists. The Minister, however, has taken the greatest care not to devolve air services, which is the main aspect of airline work with which the tourist boards are concerned. They are concerned not with the infrastructure of the airports but with the services. If tourism is so important, what about the railways? What could be more important to tourism than the railways? But no one suggests that they should be devolved. Overseas tourism will not be devolved.
The argument about planning is even more absurd. The argument is that it is more desirable that planning applications for the building or extending of airports should be handled by the political authorities which are already responsible for the running of airports. That is a negation of what we wish to see
One of the good things about the controversies over the development of airports is the dialogue between different Ministries. At least two Ministries were involved in the controversy over Edinburgh airport. If such a controversy were to take place with the Scottish Assembly in charge both of the application and of the running of the airport, the ultimate decision would be made by the same

authority as made the original plan. I do not believe that there is any advantage in that. I do not say that it cannot be worked, but there is no advantage in it.
The Government are unsure. I cannot understand why they did not take the opportunity to give way on this matter. It would have damaged the Bill not one jot or tittle. The Government are so unsure that they have not even written the proposition into the Bill. All that the Bill does is to make the proposition possible. It makes it possible for the airport management to be handed over to the Assembly if the Assembly, the airports authorities and the Government of the day decide that it is a good idea.
The case is made. The proposition might work and there might be arguments for implementing it, but there are no overwhelming arguments in favour of it. There are a considerable number of reservations. Many people, including the airport consultative committees, the users of the airports, certainly the House of Lords and possibly a majority in this House believe that this is a misguided part of the Bill, whatever their views on the rest of the Bill.
If reason is to prevail at any point, the Government could gain a great deal of kudos by acknowledging that there is not an overwhelming case for this suggestion and that it should be abandoned. I hope that we shall agree with the Lords.

Mr. Grimond: I rise in the hope that before the debate ends the Government will make the matter clearer. I start from the view that if we have to have devolution the Scottish Assembly should have some authority over nationalised industries. Without that the Assembly will find itself in great difficulties, and there will be considerable conflict between Edinburgh and Westminster.
From reading group 10 in schedule 10 it would appear that the Assembly has some authority at least over what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) described as the infrastructure. Group 10 reads:
Provision of public passenger and freight transport services within Scotland. Payment of subsidies to operators of such services within Scotland.
These are devolved matters.
That would appear to me to mean that it will be a matter for the Assembly to decide what funds are to be made available for new airports or airport extensions. It will also, I imagine, be for the Assembly to take on the responsibility of paying subsidies—for instance, the large annual subsidy to MacBrayne. That, I think, will now come under the Assembly and will not be paid out of the Exchequer. I should like to have that clear, however, because like the hon. Member for Ayr I had understood that the nationalised industries were to remain a non-devolved subject.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Perhaps I may clear that matter now with the right hon. Gentleman. The section of the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring—group 10 in schedule 10—has to be read in conjunction with paragraph 8 in part II of the schedule, which reads
Provision of air services, provision of freight transport services by road (other than by the Scottish Transport Group or any body directly or indirectly replacing it) and provision of railway services by the British Railways Board. Payments, in respect of public freight services, of subsidies—
These matters are not devolved. If the right hon. Gentleman will read that paragraph in conjunction with group 10 I am sure that the matter will be crystal clear to him.

Mr. Grimond: The matter is clearer, but I would not say that it was crystal clear. The schedule could have been better drafted. I understand that the subsidies will be a matter for the Assembly.
I want to be sure that licensing will remain with the Civil Aviation Authority. I imagine that the question of security at airports and the general running of airports will so remain. There may be some confusion if those areas are the responsibility of the CAA, but the Assembly will have the power, as I understand it, to extend existing airports or to build new ones. I should have thought that further explanation was needed on the question whether there is not a real danger of confusion in that respect.
Who will be responsible for air ambulances once the Bill becomes law?
If the Assembly wants to take over the airports and so forth, will it be open

to the Assembly, if it is so inclined, to subsidise or promote new airlines and new air services in Scotland?

Mr. Dalyell: Let us be clear that at stake here is the dismantling, no less, of the integrated system of airports in this country. What kind of sense does it make to disintegrate a system within a relatively small island? It makes no sense. The notion is barmy, and I suspect that Ministers know precisely how barmy it is; otherwise, why on earth should they have chosen to institute a request procedure in order that the Assembly could come forward with this whole rigmarole? The Government want to put the buck for muddle permanently with the Assembly, and that I understand perfectly well.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was so puzzled. I can explain quite simply why the Government have done what they have. It is part of the frenetic, frantic search for something for the Assembly to do. We need look no further. The objective is to find a job for 150 Assemblymen and all the paraphernalia that goes with them.
After the London airports, Prestwick is the second international airport in that it is the reserve for long-distance flights if Heathrow and Gatwick are fogbound. What kind of sense does it make to put Prestwick, to which long-haul transatlantic flights will from time to time be diverted, under a separate set of political rules or rule makers?
I give way to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade to address himself to this matter if he wishes. If it is retorted that the Assembly will do something different from the Westminster Parliament about Prestwick, why in heaven's name split up an organisation that is doing a good job? The only possible reason for such action is to give the Assembly at least the window dressing of having something to do.
7.15 p.m.
I address another question to my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for aviation matters. Are there to be special rules for transatlantic flights starting from Scotland—rules different from those for other such flights leaving United Kingdom airports? What is the position? I give way to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I shall explain it in my winding-up speech. Let my hon. Friend make his speech.

Mr. Dalyell: The truth in this case, as with so many other matters, is that the Government do not know.

Mr. Ewing: Of course we know. I do not intend to deal with this point at the moment. I shall deal with it in my winding-up speech. My hon. Friend must not assume that because Ministers do not jump up at his behest every time he asks a question they do not know the answers. It may well be that they are giving my hon. Friend enough rope to hang himself.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that that is a very serious answer.

Mr. Russell Kerr: It was not bad, though.

Mr. Dalyell: It shows how little scrutiny this Parliament can have over this kind of legislation. It also shows the power of the Executive not to answer questions that are very properly asked.

Mr. Ewing: I shall answer them.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall be interested to hear those answers.

Mr. Ewing: Then hurry up and sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member had better complete his speech. He heard what the Minister said on this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that it is Hobson's choice or Morton's fork. If the rules for Prestwick are to be different, laid down or dreamt up by an Assembly in its wisdom, we must ask what response such a proposition has drawn from the professional aviators. The answer, we all know, is icy. The professional aviation industry is against the whole proposal to split up responsibilities.
Are the rules to be the same as at present? Are the present arrangements to be dismantled at considerable expense in terms of money, scarce personnel and other resources? Has anyone ever deployed the argument that hiving off Prestwick to an Assembly would in any way benefit passengers using the airport or those connected with aviation? I have the unworthy suspicion that such con-

siderations played little, if any, part in the decision to hive off Prestwick. I base my assertion on the recent White Paper on airports policy.
Until now we have had a perfectly good system. The Scottish commmittee of the British Airports Authority, chaired by the deputy chairman of the Authority, has done a perfectly decent job. Who can say that it has not worked well? It is no answer for the Government to say that the Assembly must be given the ability to plan transport. In no way, to quote the phrase of my hon. Friend the Minister, is the planning of transport hampered if the unity of the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority is maintained.
Take Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports. Are there to be different rules at either end of the shuttle? Is this gratuitous compexity the end-product of having an Assembly in the High School? If I were the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) I should ask some questions about the development of Sumburgh. Is that to be undertaken by the Assembly or by the United Kingdom airports authority? If it is to be by the Assembly, how it is to be financed? The right hon. Gentleman asked a very proper question: who is to develop new airports in the event that a second airport is required in Shetland? Perhaps in the winding-up speech we could have an answer to that kind of question.
The Civil Aviation Act, which passed through the House this Session, alters part of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, which schedule 10 could devolve. For example, schedule 10 makes the Assembly and its Executive in the High School responsible for the international obligations of the United Kingdom arising from the Civil Aviation Act. This is certainly the interpretation put on it by those most concerned with airports in Scotland.
I refer to paragraph 9, line 8, on page 51 of the Bill and the question of the regulatory powers. What exactly does the term "regulatory powers" mean in this context? Does it mean that all the functions of the Civil Aviation Authority relating to airports are reserved? If all the powers are to be reserved, it will be a relief to the airport workers, some of whom, my constituents in Edinburgh, tell me that there will be discouragement


to operators from the use of Scottish airports from all the complications and bureaucracy that could arise.
Yet we come back to this question of Hobson's choice. If the powers are to be reserved, why go to the hullabaloo of giving the responsibility for aerodromes to the Assembly unless it is to give the Assembly something to do?
There is the question: what precisely is covered by that qualification concerning regulatory powers in part II of the schedule? I refer to Lord McCluskey's remarks in the House of Lords. He said:
I would point out that the words 'regulatory powers' are not intended to have a technical meaning and are not used as a term of art. They are intended to cover the powers of the CAA in respect of licensing of flights and services."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th May 1978; Vol. 391, c. 832.]
I have always thought that in this House of Commons "intentions" were not good enough, and that what mattered was how people not reading Hansard would interpret Bills and Acts, if necessary in the courts. Therefore, I ask what exactly this means and how lawyers are to interpret it.
We then come to the question of licensing decision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has told the Association of British Chambers of Commerce that appeals against licensing decisions for Scottish internal services could be applicable and be heard by the Scottish Executive in relation to clause 64. Can hon. Members imagine the potential confusion and chaos? It is not easy to administer flights at the best of times, but given this particular scenario, what would be the position of international flights with stopping places in Scotland, and what would be the situation of international flights with two stopping places in Scotland? Does a two-stop journey in Scotland, between, say, Turnhouse and Prestwick, constitute an internal flight?
It is back to the question of bureaucracy. Anything that makes landing at Scottish airports less convenient and less attractive is hardly good for the people who live in Scotland. In fact, it is downright bad for us. It hits Scotland's industry, commerce and tourism. To take action that would discourage the use of airports north of the border is just mad,

both from the Scottish point of view and from the United Kingdom point of view. The network of airports should remain unmolested in an area the size of Britain. It is just loony to suggest that we have two different bodies in charge of airports.
We come to the question of the protection of aerodromes and aircraft against acts of violence. Is there a contradiction between paragraph 9 of part II and group 10 of part I of schedule 10? The Government spokesman's explanation in the House of Lords, as reported at column 831 on 9th May, does not convince objective lawyers looking at what is said about it. Again, in the House of Lords the Government spokesman, Lord McCluskey, said that we must not suppose that we are splitting up some great monolithic structure. But final control is being split up for the first time.
The Assembly has powers in terms of the maintenance of aerodromes. The Assembly will have power to acquire land for the use of aerodromes and power to make byelaws. It will have power to place warning lights on high buildings in the vicinity of aerodromes. The Assembly will have regulation-making powers for the purpose of dealing with the effect of noise and vibration connected with the landing and taking off of aircraft at aerodromes. But, as was said at the beginning, there are certain other matters in relation to pollution where the Assembly does not have powers.
I do not apologise for going into this matter in some detail, because we really must understand the full nature of this muddle. There is the question of providing grants towards the cost of insulating buildings nearby. Why should this be done by an authority other than that which is responsible for pollution, including noise pollution? With this wardrobe of powers, let it not be suggested that the BAA and the CAA will not have two masters in future.
The Assembly will have responsibility for public health matters arising from the landing and departure of aircraft, but international regulations appear to remain the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament. Yet we find at the end, as if to tease us, that control of pollution by aircraft is specifically excluded by paragraph 7 of part II of schedule 10.
This represents, in some detail, the nature of the muddle that we are involved in. The Association of Chambers of Commerce, talking about noise control under section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act of 1971, says:
We are unable to see what can be achieved by including noise control within the scope of the Scotland Bill. This is surely a matter which should be retained by the United Kingdom Government, as it could be used to prevent certain aircraft landing at airports; in any dispute between the Scottish Executive and the Department of Trade, this devolution would be a highly effective method of reducing civil aviation to a shambles.
The hon. Member for Ayr referred to the objections of the consultative committees. The Edinburgh committee regards it as intolerable. The more we look at any particular aspect that is devolved, the more we come up against manholes which show how unsatisfactory it is. I am bound to notice one thing—that certain of my hon. Friends, as soon as we come to matters which concern them and which they really care about, albeit that they are pro-devolution on other matters, say "Oh no, we cannot have this."
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) has a longstanding interest in abortion, and he acts as a Teller though he has been making pro-devolution speeches on matters that concern him rather less. It is the same with some of my hon. Friends who are interested in forestry and others who are interested in waterways. Whenever we come to a subject where there is an intimate knowledge and concern, they must be pretty unhappy.
Therefore, I end by hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who has a longstanding interest in and knowledge of aviation affairs, will, on this occasion, join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Russell Kerr: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend nods his head. I am glad that once again I have the agreement of one of my hon. Friends who really knows and cares about the subject of aviation and is against this Bill.

Mr. Hector Monro: Following on from what the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has just said,

I imagine that every Member, whether present in the Chamber or not, knows that, if there were to be a free vote tonight, the take-over by the Assembly of airports would be thrown out. There is no question about the logic of the case. Indeed, it is quite astonishing that the Government should pursue their opposition to the Lords amendment.
It is amazing that the Government should wish to split aviation. If there was a real case for it, obviously aviation in total should go to the Assembly. But there is no case for it at all, and the Government have brought about the worst of all worlds by providing that the responsibility for aviation shall rest partially with the Assembly and partially remain, where it works extremely well at present with the Department of Trade, the CAA and the BAA.
7.30 p.m.
We went through many of the arguments when we discussed the relationship of the BAA and the CAA with Scottish airports. It was generally accepted that the two authorities worked efficiently and that there was no wish for change in the remoter airports, which should stay with the CAA. We are now seeking to intervene yet again and to put the BAA and CAA airports under the control of the Assembly. Yet so much of the control of aviation will remain with the CAA. This devolution proposal, so far as we know, is against the universal advice of the consultative committees. Perhaps the Minister will say whether any of them supports him.
Aviation is already sufficiently complicated and bureaucratic. The thought of more bureaucracy must fill particularly the pilots of airlines and the airline operators with grave apprehension. The Government are adding enormously to the future complexity of running aviation in the United Kingdom and specifically in Scotland. They are sowing the seeds of disquiet in the minds of those who deal with aviation and who fear that they will be involved with the Assembly as well as with the BAA, the CAA, the Department of Trade and the Scottish Office.
I have held a pilot's licence for many years, and I know a little about this subject and about the airports of Scotland. I understood the Minister to say that licensing in the broad sense would


not be included in an Assembly's powers. I take it that he means not only the licensing of flights and the registration of aircraft but also the licensing of pilots. However, he will have to give much more information about the future of landing fees, which are crucial. If there are to be different charges in Scotland and England, and in Wales for that matter, it will make the charging operations for overseas and internal flights very difficult for the airlines. That is a strong reason for not devolving airports.
There will obviously be some muddle over flight safety and air navigation generally, because the air navigation beacons and their flight services are dotted about Scotland and are sometimes at airports themselves. It seems a pity to split the control of those established facilities.
The hon. Member for West Lothian rightly mentioned Prestwick, which as he said is unique in having by far the finest fog-free record of any airport in Britain. All pilots know that, however bad the weather, if they get in anywhere in Britain, it will be at Prestwick. The Minister may say that the Bill does not affect flight safety or air traffic control, but he is taking away the present feeling of entity and adding one more bureaucratic layer to the control of Prestwick airport.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that there are some issues which will not be devolved, but this will all add to the doubts in people's minds.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade who is responsible for aviation is present. I wanted to refer especially to the superb job being done by the accident investigation branch which operates at Farnborough and deals with crashed aircraft and accidents in British air space. I hope that he can confirm that it will continue to investigate all accidents wherever they take place, even if they happen at the devolved airports. The branch carries out a service for the world. For example, the investigations into the Boeing 707 which crashed in Africa were a model for the whole world. The accident investigation branch in this country is without parallel and we must not lessen its authority in the United Kingdom.
We have been very fortunate in the development of island airstrips and aerodromes in Scotland. We must not underestimate our debt to the Services. The Army built many airstrips in Scotland and set up the chain which is now so important in air transport. That is not happening now because the Ministry of Defence does not have enough resources to level land and establish airstrips in the islands.
Will the Assembly have sufficient funds to continue that fine service? It is important that aviation in Scotland does not stand still and that as many areas as possible have an air service. It is not vital that such a service should be viable —few are in the islands—but it is very important to the community. The development of such services should not be hindered by this remarkable decision to split control of airports.
The investigation of noise control is very expensive whether it is monitored on the ground or in the air. Will the new Scottish Airports Authority, or whatever it may call itself, have its own flight-testing facility? Will it have enough money for its own aircraft for this work?
Many questions have been posed in the Bill—not so much by the Minister, who has dodged most of the issues tonight. I hope that he will answer many of these questions when he replies. He has given no answer which carries weight about why we must make this change and break up an air control and flight control system which largely works well and replace it with a hotch-potch of doubt and confusion which can give us no advantage at all in Scotland.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: It is very noticeable that on many matters of detail in the Bill, as on this matter, even those who are in principle very much in favour of devolution oppose the inclusion of particular subjects or topics when they examine the contradictions, difficulties and potential conflicts of interest that their own specialist knowledge reveals in the detail of the Bill. That is not accidental. It is because it is a bad Bill, a badly drafted Bill. Those who know about any particular subject always find the loopholes and the badness, and recognise the difficulties that will be caused, because of their own expert knowledge. Then, in particular matters, they turn


against the general principle which they may well support.
I understand that noise control should be a subject of the Scottish Administration, that they should be the people who use the powers of section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. There is a possible argument in favour of saying that the Executive should have those powers. But there is no possible argument for giving the legislative devolution which would enable the Assembly to add to the powers rather than simply to supervise their operation.
Now that we have amended section 29 by the Civil Aviation Act 1978, what will happen? The amendment was made in order to enable the Secretary of State for Trade to ensure compliance with international agreements on aircraft noise. If the executive powers in section 29 are to go from the Secretary of State to the Scottish Executive, the Executive will not be involved in any negotiations on international agreements on aircraft noise. What happens if it says "We do not much like your agreement and we shall have a different standard"? As far as I can see, that would be quite possible.
That could have a disastrous effect not only on Scotland but on the rest of the United Kingdom, because under the normal arrangements there is a certain reciprocity about the use of airports. For example, if Scotland decided that certain aircraft were not to be allowed to land on Scottish airports, the workings of the international arrangements as I understand them—I am open to correction by the Minister—would be such that as a result of a foreign airline's losing its licence to fly to Scotland a United Kingdom airline could by the counterpart arrangement lose its capacity to fly from English airports as well as from Scottish airports.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I cleared up this point immediately. Noise control and noise pollution are not being devolved. They are reserved.

Mr. Macmillan: That is the finest news have had for a long time. At least we have eliminated one contradiction.
I turn to licensing, which I know is not being devolved. As I understand the Government's policy, their intention is to

use the licensing arrangements to achieve the development of selected airports. Although I understand that licensing is not to go to the Assembly, but is reserved, there seems to be a slight contradiction in that the Assembly will apparently have—I think that I am correctly paraphrasing the Under-Secretary —the ultimate responsibility for long-term policies for airports in Scotland yet wilt not have responsibility for the licensing arrangements, the Government's chosen weapon for controlling long-term policies for the development of airports in the United Kingdom.
It seems to me that there will be a great deal of confusion over the intention to devolve a matter the achievement of which requires a licensing provision from the United Kingdom Government—or perhaps we shall no longer have licensing as the main way of controlling the development of selected airports.
7.45 p.m.
It is extremely dangerous to devolve the control of airports in any way which could have not only art effect on the movements of British aircraft in and out of the United Kingdom but, through counterpart agreements and the clearances granted to foreign operators, a detrimental effect on aircraft services to Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
One of the things about air travel is that it is international. One of the things about airports is that in a sense they are all international. People fly within a country, but in islands as small as the British Isles a great deal of the local traffic is for the benefit of people going on further, not only from Scotland to England or within England but to foreign countries. What worries me is that the whole of that international aspect, which surely must remain wholly within the control of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament, seems to be put at risk by devolving the control of some of those international airports to the Assembly. It is that aspect, rather than the internal United Kingdom aspect, that worries me about the Government's attitude to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Iain Sproat: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a very strong speech, and every ounce of his strength was justified.


It is extraordinary that wherever we look in the Bill, whether on the great issues of constitutional principle, such as the West Lothian question embodies, or a small but very important specific issue, we come up against chaos and confusion. Clearly, the Government themselves are not sure exactly what they intend; otherwise, they would have given specific powers.
Is it not a fact that every body outside the House connected with air travel is opposed to this measure? If not, will the Minister name those bodies which are in agreement with the Government?
We all know that there are those of us who oppose the Bill with greater or lesser degrees of strength. I oppose it totally, but I am aware that there are among my hon. Friends those who would like to see some sort of devolution. They say that at least on matters relating solely to Scotland they can go along with the principle of devolution. But surely there is no provision in the entire Bill which more obviously and by definition violates the principle of being solely to do with Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has just said, airports are by definition international institutions.
To try to justify this breach of that general principle on the ground that somehow we shall do something for the Scottish infrastructure is ridiculous. If the Minister does not intend to devolve Aberdeen railway station, why does he intend to devolve Aberdeen airport? They are both tied up in the infrastructure. I mention Aberdeen because the airport is in my constituency, but the matter has wider application.
The fact is that this provision is being introduced because the Government want to appear to be giving to the Assembly something significant to do. There will be 150 Assemblymen, and the Government have to persuade the people of Scotland that they are giving them something worthwhile to do. What will be the result? It will be a simple result and it will arise particularly out of this proposal. There will be more bureaucracy, more confusion and more cost. That is the recipe contained in the whole of the Bill, nowhere better exemplified than in this absurd amendment.

Mr. Harry Ewing: By leave of the House. I shall seek to reply to all of the points raised in the 10 minutes that remain. It is worthy of note that all hon. Members who wished to take part in the debate have been able to do so. No one has been cut out. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), as usual, was at his persuasive best when seeking to convince us to accept the Lords amendment, which I invite the House to reject.
The hon. Member for Ayr made great play, as did other hon. Members and not least my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—from his usual anti-devolution stance, passionately held these days following his change of mind—of the fact that airports are international. I quote from the Government White Paper of February 1978, Cmnd. 7084, dealing with airports policy, which refers to Scotland in paragraph 136 on page 38 and says:
As the consultation document recognised, Scotland forms a relatively distinct unit in airport planning terms. The scope for diverting London traffic to Scotland, apart from traffic with Scottish origins or destinations at present interlining through London, is negligible, and with the limited exception of the extent to which people in the Borders might look towards the North of England, there is no overlap with the catchment areas of airports in England and Wales. Historically, air travel has been more developed on domestic routes in Scotland than in the English regions".
I should have thought that that dealt once and for all with the arguments of those who say that Scottish airports are intertwined with the rest of the airports in the United Kingdom. The White Paper disagrees with that point of view.
The White Paper was put together as a result of consultations with various bodies just as interested in this matter as many of us here. The hon. Member for Ayr said that as a Government we were not sure, because we were not introducing devolution immediately. That is not the case. Devolution of all the functions I mentioned in my opening speech will take place immediately the order is made. The delay relates only to the British Airports Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority, and this is due to the need for there to be discussions between those bodies and the Assembly. I am sure that the hon. Member will accept that.
Much has been said about the difficulties of two different organisations operating in air transport. There appears to be the impression that this does not prevail at the moment in the United Kingdom. Such a view does not stand examination. The British Airports Authority airports are, in the London area, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Luton is a local authority airport, yet there is no difficulty in integrating flight arrangements between Luton, Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow. Hon. Members do themselves no credit when they seek to argue that, because the Government say that the Assembly ought to have responsibilty for the management of airports in Scotland, difficulties will be created for flight management. We have these differences in England and Wales arising from the ownership and operation of airports, and no difficulties arise.

Mr. Younger: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead anyone. We are talking about Scotland, and he must know that there have been immense difficulties in the allocation of traffic between Prestwick and Glasgow airports. That problem has been resolved only by putting them both under the British Airports Authority.

Mr. Ewing: It is not accurate to say that the situation has been resolved in that way. It is the Civil Aviation Authority which has resolved the problem in relation to Prestwick.
In view of the time, it would be better if I came immediately to the Prestwick position. The situation is quite clear. As the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) pointed out, licensing responsibility is not to be devolved. It will continue to be the case after the Assembly has taken responsibility for the management of Scottish airports that applications for licences to fly into and out of Prestwick will be handled by the Department of Trade. In that sense, the allocation of air traffic between the various airports in the whole of the United Kingdom is a reserved matter. I hope that nothing has been said in the debate which will create uncertainty where none should exist, particularly with respect to Prestwick.
I turn now to the accident investigation branch. This, too, is a reserved matter. There is no question of the branch being devolved. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked about the air ambulance service. Because of its health functions, it will be a devolved matter for which the Assembly will be responsible.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has, as usual—I say this with respect—set up all the Aunt Sallies that he is normally able to set up on this or any other aspect of devolution only to have had them all shot down. Whether he likes it or not, there are differences at both ends of the shuttle. I thought that it was a bad example to cite to suggest that after devolution there would be differences at both ends of the shuttle. Those differences exist now, and I do not hear any complaints about that.
I was asked whether the consultative committees had made representations to the Government concerning their views on the devolution of airports. I say, to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in particular, that I am not aware of the committees having made representations to the Government about the devolution of airports in Scotland. I shall have this checked. I have made inquiries during the debate and we have not been able to find a trace of such representations. I see the hon. Member for Ayr holding a letter in his hand. Representations may have been made to him on the point, but that is different from their being made to the Government. All I am saying is that, if representations have been made to us, we are not able to trace them at the moment.
I think I have said sufficient to convince the House that the management of airports in Scotland ought to be devolved to the Assembly in the way that I have suggested. For all these reasons, I again ask the House to disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

It being Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 259.

[For Division List No. 281, see c. 473]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

Consequential amendment made: in page 67, line 50, at end insert—
'Civil Aviation Act 1978 (c.8), sections 8 and 9. Not included.'—[Mr. Millan.]

Lords Amendments Nos. 134 to 136 disagreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 132, 133, 137 and 138 agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 139, in page 50, line 31, at end insert
("Grants with respect to items for the collections of museums and galleries and special grants with respect to items for the collections of libraries.")

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was moved by the Government on Third Reading in the Lords in order to correct a defective amendment which had been carried earlier to reserve purchase grants for libraries, museums and art galleries. This was done, and this was made perfectly clear at the time, totally without commitment on the Government's part to the principle underlying the amendment, and simply to ensure that the Bill as it returned to the Commons was technically correct and would not give rise to doubts in interpretation.
The effect of the amendment is to reserve to the Government responsibility for all purchase funds—that is, annual purchase grants and special grants—for Scottish museums and galleries, but to reserve responsibility for special purchase grants alone in respect of Scottish libraries. The supporters of the amendment were also concerned about the use of the National Land Fund in relation

to items for collections, but were reassured on this point. Access to the fund is reserved, but this will not prevent allocations being made to the Scottish institutions of items acquired with assistance from the National Land Fund.
The Government throughout have maintained a consistent position on the devolution of purchase grants, and it may be helpful if I once again set out that position. At present, libraries, museums and galleries receive annual grants in aid for purchases of objects to add to their collections. But occasionally an object comes on to the market whose cost is outwith the scope of the institution's regular purchase grant. In such cases, a Scottish institution can apply to the Scottish Office for a special purchase grant. Such a grant must have the approval of the Treasury which will be given only if the Treasury is satisfied that a number of stringent conditions have been met. It has always been the practice that a special grant should not be more than one-half of the cost of the object.
The proposal that responsibility for the national museums and galleries in Scotland, and for the National Library of Scotland, should lie with the devolved administration has never seriously been questioned. This includes responsibility for the overall development of these institutions in Scotland, their organisation, salaries and staffing, provision of accommodation, maintenance of buildings and care of their contents. With this wide-ranging policy, in the Government's view, should lie control of both the normal purchase grants and any special purchase grants which the institutions may seek.
As for routine purchases, to remove from the Scottish Administration responsibility for providing from the block fund the normal purchase grants-in-aid for museums and galleries but to devolve the same grants in respect of libraries does not make sense. This could be quite easily budgeted for in advance and should be dealt with as part of the routine funding of the institutions.
To suggest that the Scottish Administration will be less conscious of the importance of purchase grants and of cultural and artistic matters in general than the Government in London is paternalism of the worst kind. Obviously the Scottish Administration will


wish to establish its own priorities in these, as in other matters. If some special item comes on the market, or if special circumstances arise which involve extraordinary expenditure which could not be budgeted for, once again the Government's view is that it should be for the devolved administration to consider whether it can find the money from the block fund. After all, the block fund will be very large. It will be of the order of £2,000 million at 1975–76 prices. If additional and unforeseen expenditure occurs in any of the areas covered by the block fund, surely the first priority must be to see whether the block fund can accommodate it.
However, it seems reasonable to concede that if the works of art were important enough and the sums of money involved such that clearly they could not be accommodated within the block fund, the issue might take on a Great Britain dimension. It would then be open to the Scottish Administration to ask the Government to help. The answer, of course, would depend on the circumstances of the case.

Mr. Timothy Raison: How would the Minister suggest defining within a block fund what amount of money was available for a purchase and what was not? I can see that if there were specific grants of some kind, that would be possible. But when the whole essence of the proposal is that the money is handed over to the Scottish Assembly to be spent as it wishes, it is quite impossible to say that this is the amount of money that it can provide but that this plus X is the amount in respect of which it must have recourse to the Treasury.

Mr. Ewing: The answer to that is quite simple. The Scottish Assembly would decide what money should be available from the block fund which had been negotiated by it with the Treasury here on behalf of the Scottish Assembly. The difference between normal purchases of articles which come on to the market and which are of interest to libraries or museums and special items is quite distinct. There have been occasions in the past and there will be occasions in the future when neither the museums nor the libraries have been or will be in a position to fund the purchase of such items from their own budgets. It is

in these circumstances that application could be made to the Scottish Office at the moment, and in the future to the Treasury, for consideration of this special allocation. In these circumstances, as has been the case in the past, it is not likely that the allocation would exceed 50 per cent. of the purchase price.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: May I press my hon. Friend on that precise matter? In the course of the debate in the House of Lords on this issue the noble Lady, Baroness Stedman indicated that it would be open to the Scottish Assembly to come to the Treasury for a special grant. Subsequently, I and, I understand, the noble Lords who took part in that debate, received a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), saying that the noble Lady had been incorrect in saying that if any special circumstances should arise in which additional money needed quickly to be made available to save a valuable work of art, the Scottish Administration could come to the Treasury to make its case. If I read that letter aright, my hon. Friend is saying that in special, extraordinary circumstances in which additional money is needed quickly, it will not be open to the Scottish Administration to come to the Treasury.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Perhaps it would be convenient for the Minister to answer both questions together. As I understand it, it would be for the Assembly to decide whether money should be spent, and how much, out of the block grant to make a specific purchase. However, is it not likely that if there were a fall-back position and the Assembly were told that even if it did not grant the money the Government would come to its aid, that fallback position would encourage the Assembly not to make the grant in the first place?

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. What I wish to raise touches on the same point but is slightly different. In reply to me a moment or two ago, the Minister seemed to introduce the principle of hypothecated revenue. I understood that the whole point of the block fund was that the money was handed over, that it


was then spent by the Scottish Assembly as it wished, and that any notion that within that money the Government would say "This is what you spend on arts, this is what you spend on roads, this is what you spend on houses", and so, was never intended. Yet the Minister seems to have swung over to a kind of hypothecation merely for the purposes of this debate.

Mr. Ewing: I think that it would be better if I were allowed to develop my argument. However, I can assure the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that I am not arguing the hypothecation of revenue. At no time during the debate has it been suggested that after devolution the Government will say to the Scottish Assembly that it should spend so much of the block budget on X and so much on Y. I am not saying that now. I am saying that for years past Scottish museums, libraries and art galleries have been involved in purchases. When it comes to negotiating the block fund, account will be taken of that. There is an annual cost involved, and account will be taken of that. However, there arise special circumstances when unique and rare items come on to the market for purchase.
I hope that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will forgive me if I do not answer his question immediately. I want to be absolutely sure in answering his question. I shall answer it before the House makes up its mind about this amendment. I shall take account as well of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said. But, if the House will agree, I think that it will be better if I develop my argument.
I was talking about special purchases, and I should explain that at present all special purchase grants are ad hoc and without prejudice. To say that these are matters which can be decided only by the Government and to exclude the devolved Administration would be contrary to the basic principles of devolution. Therefore, the Government cannot accept this amendment.
It is relevant to point out that when amendments to the Wales Bill with precisely the same effect were moved by the official Opposition in another place, the

same arguments and the same explanations that I have just advanced persuaded the majority of that place to reject the amendments.
I do not think that it is going too far to suggest that the House of Lords, after fuller debates and with a greater understanding of the matter under discussion, came to the conclusion that the Government's proposals were acceptable. For all these reasons, I suggest that we disagree with the Lords amendment.

8.30 a.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: We have spent a great deal of time on devolution, and this is the second Bill before the House. It has been grinding through its processes for some time. Therefore, I find it rather surprising, particularly on this item of galleries, museums and libraries, that there should still be confusion in the minds of the Minister and his colleagues.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) pointed out that there had been some confusion in another place on 9th May following a reply by Baroness Stedman. She said, in a reference to the point about special purchase grants:
'Extraordinary action by the Treasury will continue to be available as now and allocations can still be made to the galleries, and so on, of Scotland. I hope that this assurance clears up the point."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th May 1978; Vol. 391, c. 805.]
That was on 9th May, yet the point is still not clear.
A letter was then sent out to those Lords who had taken part in the debate. That letter was a retraction of the statement made by Baroness Stedman on 9th May. The letter, as recorded in the Lords debate of 12th June, stated:
I was incorrect in stating that if any special extraordinary circumstances should arise in which extra money needs quickly to be made available to save a very valuable work of art, then the Scottish Administration can come to the Treasury to make their case."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12th June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 76.]
That is obviously a clear rebuttal of the earlier statement made in the debate in another place by Baroness Stedman.

Mr. Dalyell: I must point out that by 12th June it was quite clear to those who had taken part in the debate on 9th May that an apology had been made. For example, in his opening remarks Lord


Robbins acquitted Baroness Stedman of trying to mislead the House, and he made it absolutely plain that he and others who are interested in galleries had accepted that she had made a mistake. The matter was left at that.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I should not have intervened at this stage had my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) not stepped in at that moment to try, as usual, to distort the argument. The last paragraph of the letter is quite clear, when it says:
The above-mentioned arrangements are, of course, without prejudice to the freedom of action by the Government to make funds available in any case they think fit for any purchase, whatever the circumstances.
My understanding of the debate in the other place was that the concern was about access to the National Land Fund, and all I am saying is that that access will still be available on the same conditions as hitherto has been the case.

Mr. Fletcher: Obviously I was not present at the debate in another place and therefore did not hear the arguments. But confusion still exists between what Baroness Stedman said in another place and what the Minister is saying tonight. I should be much happier to accept the conclusion that the Lords arrived at on 12th June when they realised then that they were starting again from scratch on this arrangement.
I thought that we were coming to the debate this evening from the position as it is recorded on 12th June. Now we seem to be moving into an even more confused situation on 18th July. It is very difficult for the House to know where it stands on these arrangements. The Minister certainly has not clarified the point. Perhaps in the course of the debate he might receive some advice on the matter.
I cannot believe that the letter retracting Baroness Stedman's statement, and saying that special grants would not be available, is any more likely to be right or wrong in comparison with the Minister's statement a few minutes ago that special grants would still be available from the Treasury. Unless the Minister can clarify the situation at the outset, we are in a completely new situation.

Mr. Ewing: If the hon. Member would look at Baroness Stedman's letter, he

would see that the paragraph to which I referred is included in it. It says:
The above-mentioned arrangements are of course without prejudice…
She goes on to say what I have just said. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Member cannot understand that.

Mr. Fletcher: There is clearly some confusion between the two Ministers, one in another place and the other in this House. On that basis I rest on the decision and judgment of their Lordships. That is a better basis on which to continue this debate than to quote from a letter of which the Minister may have a copy but which we do not possess.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been told that I have been distorting something. The only thing I could have distorted was Lord Robbins' speech. I am at some disadvantage, because we cannot read out exactly what was said. For the sake of the record I should be willing to read the opening paragraph of Lord Robbins' speech, but that would be out of order. I merely wish to point out that I was not trying to distort anything.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) tries to raise a point of order and then goes on to say that he wishes to do something that is out of order. Matters are becoming a little confused. That seems to be the general atmosphere in the House. The point is that it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I share the confusion suffered by other hon. Members. Is it not in order in this House to quote in full ministerial pronouncements made in the other House? If that ministerial pronouncement is inaccurate and another noble Lord corrects it, there may be some rule of order to allow us to take that into account.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Until that new rule of order arrives, we must stick to the present rule. The rule is that where a Minister in another place has made a statement, it can be read in detail in this House, but where some other noble Lord


or Baroness, not a member of the Government, makes a statement, it has to be paraphrased.

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot throw any further light on the situation. Clearly there is confusion between the two Ministers concerned. I wish to try to consider the amendment as it stands, because it is clear that the Bill cannot be satisfactory if we do not agree to the Lords amendment.
There are two reasons why we support the retention of the amendment. The first is that the present system works well, if only because of the fact that we know what it is. That cannot be said of the position as the Minister has presented it to us this evening.
The second and most important factor is that the present system is part of the complex taxation arrangements laid down by the Treasury. One advantage of the present system is that it is removed so far as possible from the political arena, particularly from local politics, while the block grant system through which the Assembly will be financed would not assist purchases to be made for museums and galleries, if only because the political argument about spending priorities would be too near home.
We all know from our own experience of these matters how difficult it can be for local authorities to become involved in these ventures. Local expenditure is more often in the public firing line than that of Government Departments. Attempts to finance art purchases by allocating part of the block grant could cause great difficulties with the Assembly.
The Assembly will have enough problems of this kind—problems involving the allocation of resources and of trying to sort out priorities—especially at the beginning as it attempts to agree the block grant with Westminster on the one hand and, on the other, the allocation of expenditure among the various functions of the local authorities themselves.
There is the genuine fear of unnecessary political bickering and interference as well as a number of complex practical difficulties. At the end of the day we are likely to find that the new arrangements fail to match the present satisfactory arrangements.
The amendment is intended to limit the area of devolved matters affecting museums and galleries. I accept as a matter for the Assembly the devolution of the day-to-day management of these places, but it makes a distinction between purchase grants-in-aid and day-to-day management. It is the inevitable connection between taxation policy and the purchase of works of art which makes this distinction necessary. I am at a loss to understand why Ministers refuse to recognise this fact.
It was noticeable that the Minister made no reference to the complexity of taxation matters and the extent to which considerations of that kind must be taken into account when any items are available for purchase or sale. That is particularly surprising from Ministers who specialise in the creation of high levels of taxation and are for ever thinking of new ways not just of collecting taxes but of making life more difficult for private collectors of art works.
There is a letter to the Secretary of State from Dr. Jack Kane, chairman of the National Galleries of Scotland. It is dated 31st May. It is three pages in length and frank in its criticisms of the Government's proposals. It contains a complaint that in another place no argument of substance was adduced against the Lords amendment—that is the first serious criticism that the letter contains. It goes on to explain that the Bill introduces a separation between annual purchase grants and special purchase grants which would be extremely difficult to operate. It covers a number of important points, not least the view, as it says,
that purchase grants are essentially a part of the central taxation system and should remain under central control".
I think that particularly relevant is the prècis of a paper prepared by the director of the National Galleries of Scotland, which is attached to the letter. This prècis says, first of all,
The need to stop important works of art from being sold abroad from the private collections in this country has led during the course of this century to: (1) the formation of the National Art-Collections Fund; (2) export controls; (3) certain applications of the National Land Fund; (4) exemptions from estate duty; (5) special Government purchase grants; (6) the remission of estate duty on objects acquired by museums; and (7) acceptance of objects in payment of tax. These are national instruments and, except for the privately funded National Art-Collections Fund, they are all


directly related to the tax laws in force at a particular time.…
The significance of that criticism should be obvious.
I was surprised that the Under-Secretary of State did not refer to the National Galleries of Scotland's case on the Bill and the amendment, because I do not believe that the House can afford to ignore such an authority regarding the protection of Scotland's heritage.
There is a further quotation from the precis that I think the House would want to consider. It says:
The annual purchase grants of the national museums and galleries of Scotland are not reserved exclusively to acquisitions involving the national heritage, but this is now their predominant use. These would therefore seem to be sound reasons for recognising them as an element of the central taxation system, which could not be subject to separate control without upsetting the balance of the whole machine.
That says a lot for the amendment and for the protection that the Lords are trying to give to the National Galleries and those other institutions in Scotland which are particularly dependent, among other things, on the taxation system and how it affects their treasures.
8.45 p.m.
There is no easy way in which an Assembly operating a block grant system could respond with the speed and objectivity required when purchase grants are requested. I am not suggesting that the present system is perfect, but it is more flexible and better suited to the requirements of our museums and art galleries, as the chairman and the director of the National Galleries pointed out in their letter.
The Treasury levies the taxes which affect the vital decisions of sale and purchase and the Treasury is therefore also responsible for ensuring that works of art that have to be sold do not unnecessarily go abroad. It follows, therefore, that, faced with this responsibility, the Treasury must supply funds when they are needed for this purpose. These are not decisions which can be taken compartmentally in Scotland, England Wales, because they affect the national heritage of all the people of the United Kingdom.
The case for the amendment is based on the sheer practicality of the need to

take account on a day-to-day basis of the ever-changing tax scene and the requirements of the country as a whole. Like the Scottish universities, our museums, libraries and galleries in Scotland have a British, as well as a Scottish, role. I hope that the House will recognise the need to look objectively at the facts and will allow this non-partisan amendment to remain in the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is rare for me to intervene in these debates, because I take the view that they are largely Scottish matters, but we in the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned. Perhaps we have too often taken the view that these are matters for Scottish Members only. Some of the most impressive statements on either side have been those that have considered the implications of the Bill for England. As a keen devolutionist, my view is that one of the flaws in the whole devolution programme is that its impact on England has not been sufficiently considered. That is the case with these amendments.
When devolution takes place, we must recognise that there may be a natural fear that the consequence of handing over powers that have hitherto been exercised centrally and exercised, in the opinion of those exercising them, in a wise and beneficent fashion, will be that those powers will be misused, or not used in such a wise fashion. The possibility is there and the question that the House has to consider is whether the possibility of a misuse of the powers is so great that they should not be devolved.
In my judgment, there is very little possibility of the powers being misused in Scotland. The Scots are a proud people, who are much more conscious of their heritage and culture than are those in the rest of the United Kingdom. There can be little fear that, left to itself, a Scottish Assembly will conclude that the whole heritage of Scotland is a matter which could be treated lightly. If that fear exists, it is ill-placed.

Mr. Robert Cooke: With his wide experience of the arts and his interesting period of office as Minister responsible for the arts, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will have thought deeply about these matters. Can he define "Scottish heritage"? Are the Duke of Sutherland's Titians, which are now on loan to a Scottish


gallery, part of the Scottish heritage or the United Kingdom heritage? If they are forced on to the market because of the tax policy of the Government, should they be rescued as part of the Scottish heritage or as part of the United Kingdom heritage, and who should do the rescuing?

Mr. Jenkins: The term "heritage" is one that I regret. It has come into general use. I did not initiate it myself. It is a loose and regrettable term. In the Green Paper on the wealth tax it was a great nuisance. It was used widely to mean all sorts of works of art, many of which were residing in bank vaults and never seen by anybody. If they were anybody's heritage, they were not the heritage of the nation. If I used the term myself, I was in error in doing so. I meant to refer to those possessions that the people of Scotland can regard as belonging to themselves. A decision on what should be retained is one that could be as well reached in Scotland as in England. That is all that I was trying to say. Such decisions do not have to be made here. There are people as well qualified to reach those decisions in Soot-land as anywhere else.
For these reasons I am in favour of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was putting before us.

Mr. Tom Litterick: Does my hon. Friend consider that it might be easy so to regard a Titian, a Rembrandt or some other piece of art that was stolen from elsewhere 100, 200 or 500 years ago? It would be quite a different matter if, for instance, we were having to consider the original manuscripts of Hugh McDiarmid—

Mr. Robin F. Cook: They are in America.

Mr. Litterick: —who is the greatest living poet. His very name conjures up in the minds of some parochial politicians in Scotland ideas that have nothing to do with the artistic, cultural or any other sort of value of the work.hat McDiarmid has produced and, therefore, would produce a distorted decision. A decision made in London might be much more accurate.

Mr. Jenkins: My hon. Friend, as always, is ingenious in his argument but

somewhat unconvincing. The manuscripts of McDiarmid would be widely regarded in any sphere as valuable and interesting. I find it hard to believe that an Assembly would think less of such manuscripts than others elsewhere.
In general principle, it seems that there is nothing wrong with the idea of devolution of these matters. Are there technical difficulties? I find it hard to suppose that it could be suggested that an Assembly resident and existing in Scotland could be in principle incapable of reaching correct decisions. If that were the argument—I do not think that anybody is advancing it—it would be the grossest reflection on anybody living north of the border. Surely nobody could conceivably sustain that argument. It would be an impossible argument to advance.
The argument rests, if it rests on anything, on technical difficulty. It is a question whether a special purchase grant or a general purchase grant can effectively be operated on the basis of advice tendered. If I understood my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State correctly, he was saying that in the generality of such matters the Assembly would reach its own decisions and would find its own funds to support its decisions from general resources. He was also saying that if the Assembly, or any part of the Executive in Scotland, found itself in a position of special difficulty and in need of special assistance, it would not be impossible for the Westminster Government to be approached. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. Harry Ewing: indicated assent.

Mr. Jenkins: If I am correct, I fail to see the objection.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend was a Minister. The Under-Secretary of State said that an issue might take on a Great Britain dimension. What criteria, as Minister, would my hon. Friend have used about what was a Great Britain dimension? He may have a good answer, but is there not a problem?

Mr. Jenkins: There is a problem. But there has always been a problem. It is not a problem that is affected by governmental or devolution changes. The question whether an object is valuable can


be determined without national considerations. Generally it is known whether an object is of artistic value. This involves international criteria which do not normally involve national considerations, although the case of Hugh McDiarmid might be an exception.
It can be said that certain works of art are of a general excellence and that they have an international value. At a lower level certain objects will be of value to a particular nation. That is a reasonable division that can be made. I should have thought that the general purchase grant would take care of those objects which are of Scottish value, whereas a special purchase grant would be used for objects of international value.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I should like my hon. Friend to go further in his definition of criteria. When he was Minister he expressed an immortal sentiment, that it was right for the nation to use its works of art in times of crisis. That meant that the Government should be able to sell works of art to get them out of a tight economic corner. Who is to decide whether something should be sold to bail out Scotland? It is to be Scotland, if the work of art is in Scotland, or is it to be the United Kingdom? How does the former Minister address himself to that problem?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot recall saying that the country should use its works of art to bail a Government out of difficulty. We have been in great difficulty on many occasions, but I do not believe that we have been so hard up that we have considered flogging a few Titians.
For the most part we are involved in an international art market. As a country we are an important participator in the international art market. That market is located in London. It might reasonably be thought that Scotland is out of the international art market. In the main, those objects which are sold on the international market are not those which are essential to retain here. Only about ½ per cent. of the stuff that comes into the international art market is material that it is necessary to retain. The trade is important to our balance of payments, but the bulk of such trade cannot be described as irreplaceable or material that must be preserved.
It is right that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be anxious

about those objects that it might be considered essential to retain.

9.0 p.m.

Mrs. Knight: Can the hon. Gentleman suggest an answer to a dilemma? Suppose that a picture has been purchased with the help of the Westminster Government and the back-up arrangements that exist, and that subsequently it is desired, possibly because of a shortage of cash, to sell the picture. What relationship does the hon. Member envisage would exist with the central Government? Under the amendment, would it be necessary to seek permission of the central Government for the sale?

Mr. Jenkins: No. No such question would arise. When the money is provided it is given to an institution, which then acquires the object. The object is then the property of the institution. There could be no question of recovery by any section of the Government.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: My hon. Friend is in danger of perpetrating a fallacy. It is plain that if the amendment is not made special grants will be devolved. Those are special grants from the Treasury to prevent the export of property. That is what Baroness Stedman said in the House of Lords on 12th June. She confirms the sentence that is in the letter that the Minister read. She goes on immediately after that to say, and this puts the sentence in context:
If the Government go ahead and buy some special object or picture or book which they think would be better housed in one of the Scottish institutions, then I am sure that is what they will do."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12th June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 89.]
Clearly there the Baroness envisages a situation in which the Government have purchased a work of art and are looking around for a place in which to house it. She is not considering the situation in which an application is made by the Scottish Administration for support. That side of the matter is clearly devolved.

Mr. Jenkins: I understand the view that my hon. Friend takes on the matter, but on another occasion I do not think that he would seek to argue that what a noble Lady says in another place carries greater weight than what a Minister says in this House. We in this House take what the Minister says on the matter as the decisive answer. What the noble


Baroness says elsewhere is of interest elsewhere.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Since my hon. Friend is anxious only to take the word of Ministers, I refer him to a letter that I have received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He states in that letter that when Baroness Stedman made her remarks in the Committee stage
she had in mind the national land fund and not the special purchase grants.
There my hon. Friend has it. It is plainly stated in a letter from a Minister that Baroness Stedman was not referring to special grants, and the implication of that is that they are devolved.

Mr. Jenkins: The question must lie between the Minister and my hon. Friend. I speak not from the textual basis upon which my hon. Friend relies but with some knowledge about the way in which these things operate. The change being proposed will not fundamentally alter the situation. These decisions are fundamentally ones for the Treasury. The decisions that are made at another level generally relate to the location of an object. Often there are competing claims about where an object should go. There may be legitimate competing claims about the right place to house an art work which has remained in this country for a number of years. The best place for a decision on that, if the object is historically, sentimentally or artistically connected with Scotland, is in Scotland. For that reason, I take the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Raison: As an Englishman I have rather mixed feelings about the Government's attitude to this matter, because the consequence of the Government's scheme is to make it rather more likely that the English galleries will be well stocked with additional pictures while Scottish galleries will relatively be less well stocked. In other words, it will be that much harder for the Scottish galleries to raise the money for the really major works of art and, therefore, those works are likely to go either to the national galleries in London or other, provincial galleries. From that point of view, I should perhaps go along with the Gov-

ernment. Nevertheless, I cannot feel that they have come up with the right answer.
It is still rather difficult to know exactly what answer the Government have come up with. We have had quite a lot of discussion regarding the observations of Baroness Stedman in another place. The Minister has also had a go at explaining to us what it is all about. But it must be said that there is still a degree of confusion in this House about exactly what is meant.
What I think is meant is that routine allocation of funds to the Scottish galleries would be wholly devolved to the Scottish Assembly. They would receive an annual grant for purchasing but, on top of that, they would also have the facilities for special purchases, again derived from the Scottish Assembly, but in some very unknown circumstances it is possible that the Treasury in London would chip in with a little bit more or quite a lot more. If one looks very carefully at the collected correspondence of Baroness Stedman and various pages of Hansard, that appears to be what the position is. That may be so, though I am not sure.
Even so, there are a number of rather important questions which we ought to face. One is the point which I raised earlier in an intervention—the question of hypothecated revenue. Even if one accepts the point of view of the Minister that he is not talking about hypothecation —he may be technically correct in that matter, though I do not think that he is correct in spirit—nevertheless there is still a real problem about how one decides what this normal amount of money would be and at what point one would assume that it is not enough and would then turn to the central Government in London. Again, that is an uncertain matter.
Another point which has to be made, although it has been partly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North (Mr. Fletcher), is that the National Galleries of Scotland and the Museum of Antiquities are clearly not happy about these proposals. My hon. Friend set out this argument. I should like to quote one other passage which I believe I am right in saying my hon. Friend did not quote The trustees of the national galleries gave this view:
Purchase grants are an essential element of the central taxation system which cannot


be detached or put under separate control without upsetting the balance of the whole machine. Since taxation and the laws governing taxation would remain outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish Assembly, we believe that our purchase funds in aid should also be reserved and should not be allowed to go through the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
I think that they had some very powerful reasons for putting that over, as my hon. Friend has said. One reason, of course, is the question of doing a deal with the Treasury about giving pictures in lieu of tax. I do not understand how this could work under the Government's proposals. It has become a common practice, and it is likely to become more common in future, that there will be a tradeoff between works of art going to national galleries and tax concessions relating to capital transfer tax. However, I think that the Minister owes the House an explanation of how this will work if the Government's scheme goes through.
The really important argument, of course, is the one relating to the scale of resources that will be available for the purchase of major works of art. I have already conceded that Baroness Stedman apparently said that a kind of ultimate reserve fund would be available. However, it is a little naive to believe that that would be just as available as its notional equivalent would be available for works of art for English galleries. One will find, I beieve, that the House of Commons will take the view that while at present it is, as it were, generous in supporting Ministers who wish to provide especially important works of art for the Scottish galleries, in the new situation it will not show that generosity.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I think that, perhaps inadvertently, the hon. Member may have given the impression that at present it is comparatively easy to get a special purchase grant. It is not easy. A special purchase grant is extraordinarily difficult to come by. Therefore, when it is suggested that here is something which is fairly easy of access at present, which is likely to become very much more difficult, the answer is that it will not be easy of access under any set of circumstances.

Mr. Raison: With respect, I do not think that that observation is relevant. It is perfectly true that it is not easy to get a special grant. I do not think I was arguing that it is particularly easy. If I

did, I was wrong. But the fact is that the argument really relates to a comparison between the ease with which the Scottish galleries will be able to get a special grant and the ease with which the English and, for that matter, the Welsh and Northern Irish galleries, perhaps, will be able to get a special grant.
I have very little doubt that the new arrangement will make it harder for Scottish galleries to get the really big grant that is necessary to buy the really major work of art. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My goodness, if the Minister has heard this argument previously, he has heard it 100 times. What devolution will do is to create between the countries of the United Kingdom a degree of jealousy which never existed in the past. This is an absolutely graphic illustration of how this can operate. There is no doubt about it. The mere fact that we are talking about it shows that this change in attitude has taken place.
If the Government come up with a scheme which treats English Members in the way that this scheme does, they cannot then be surprised if English Members occasionally become a bit huffy about the matter. The Minister might take that on board.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1975 the National Gallery of Scotland, in Edinburgh, gave up its annual grant—it pooled it—in order to get a special grant? It would not have received a special grant if it had not given up the annual grant, and the negotiations were carried out from one source. Would it not be much more complicated to do that sort of thing if one had to deal with several different authorities at the same time?

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. What I want to press, however, is that in the world in which we live today we must realise that, when it comes to buying the major works of art, a very great deal of money must be available, and it will be only the central treasuries of rich countries that are able to afford these. I quote in evidence what happened the other day in the sale of the Hirsch collection. An extremely important collection was sold, and it was well known that the German Government


intervened in a big way to buy a set of medieval objects which originated from Germany and which they wished to add to the German museums. I do not believe that in the modern world envisaged by the Government the Scottish museums will have much of a chance of getting in on that kind of thing.
Another fact of the modern art market is the existence of the enormous Getty fund, which apparently will be available to buy up major works of art when they come on to the market. Again, as a result of the Government's attitude, the Scottish galleries will be in that much weaker position to have a chance of buying major works of art, because they will operate on a lower level of resources. They will even come up against the competition of the British Rail pension fund, which has now decided to set itself up in the business of competing.
Therefore, as I said at the beginning, I believe that the net outcome of what is put forward in the Government's proposal will be that when it comes to buying major works of art the Scottish galleries will be at a disadvantage.
I also add, finally, one other point which I think is bigger even than this. This has to do with the fact that these museums and art galleries should be seen as part of the heritage of the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government were wise, right from the beginning, about universities. They understood that universities were to do with the United Kingdom as a whole. That was a wise decision on their part. I believe that exactly the same decision should be made about the art galleries because they are part of our common heritage.
If hon. Members take a fiercely nationalistic view, as I dare say the hon. Member who represents the Scottish National Party does—the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson)—they will not agree with me. The hon. Member for Galloway thinks that what we should be looking at is a kind of carve-up or a scramble for bits and pieces of what is owned in the United Kingdom. That is his point of view, but I think that that view is profoundly wrong and retrograde. When one is talking of things such as the immensely great galleries that we have in Edinburgh, London and elsewhere, it

is very much better to take for once a United Kingdom view rather than the really rather petty and trivial view that is time and again embodied in the devolution proposals.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because it turns on a serious point. I have had an opportunity to discuss this issue with both the chairman of the trustees and the director of the National Galleries of Scotland, which are in my constituency. It is entirely misleading and unfair to those gentlemen to suggest that what exercises them is their fear of the political judgment of those elected to the Assembly. That is not what is at stake at all. What exercises them is that, by a process of this devolution of the grant system, we are divorcing the financing of the museums from the operation of the tax system which gives rise to the majority of works coming on to the market which should be preserved for the national heritage.
One can illustrate that by reference to capital transfer tax. It has been alleged —I do not know whether it is correct—that CTT has resulted in additional works of art coming on to the market. Some people suggested that the tax should not have been introduced because it would have exactly that effect, of driving abroad some British works of art.
I never took that view. I thought that it would be right for us to say that we should have the CTT because of its wider advantages and the wider reasons for such a tax system but that we should take care to make sure that sufficient information was provided through the Treasury to the national galleries and museums to ensure that we did not lose part of the national heritage through export because it would be able to recycle part of that tax to purchase those works of art.
That seems a sensible and tenable position, but it makes sense and remains tenable only so long as the Government who propose that new form of taxation are also the Government who propose the form and amount of the grant to galleries and museums and so long as the Parliament which approves that system is also the Parliament which approves the appropriation of money for those grants.


Once that is severed, as we propose in the Bill by devolving the grants while maintaining the taxation system here, a problem is created.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Secretary of State for Education and Science said last year at the Royal Academy banquet that it was her estimate that there were £3,000 million-worth of works of art of national importance still in private hands in the United Kingdom? If they are to be dislodged by capital transfer tax—even the hon. Member must concede that the tax has had some effect recently and no doubt will have a greater effect in future—how would he tackle that subject?

Mr. Cook: I do not want to get dragged into the wider debate on the national heritage and on whether the capital transfer tax was or was not right. The point that I am making, which remains valid irrespective of one's opinion of CTI, is that, so long as one does not divorce the financing of the purchases of the works of art as a result of that tax from the body which proposes the tax system, one can at least arrange to compensate automatically for the effect of that taxation.
What we propose to do here is to give the right to allocate and determine grants to a body which will have no say whatever in the taxation system. That is where the difficulty arises and that is what gives rise to the trustees' fear. We are not talking, I might say, about some effete hereditary lords, who it is frequently suggested are responsible for these amendments. The chairman of the trustees of the National Galleries is Dr. Jack Kane, who is well known on this side for his contribution both to the Labour movement and to local government. I do not for a moment know what his views are on the general question of devolution. For all I know, he may be an ardent supporter of devolution—

Mr. Dalyell: Not on your life.

Mr. Cook: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has ruined my point. We shall have to confer about our prompt lines in greater detail.
On this point, Dr. Kane feels strongly —and not because of his general attitude to devolution, whatever that may be.
The hours that we have spent debating this matter have uncovered considerable confusion in the minds of hon. Members and of the Government about what precisely will be devolved. Apparently the Front Bench now maintain that special grants will not be devolved.
I can only draw attention to the precise wording of the amendment, which was to make clear that the following were not devolved:
Grants with respect to items for the collections of museums and galleries and special grants with respect to items for the collections of libraries.
It is plain from that that it is all grants that the others place is exempting. If the House decides to disagree with the amendment, we are by implication devolving grants. There is nothing in the Bill which makes a specific exemption in the case of grants. That was the point debated at considerable length in the other place, where a consensus arose that, as there is no specific reference to special grants, as the Bill is silent on national museums, it can only be assumed that they are indeed devolved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) has already made the point that special grants are very rare. It is difficult to conceive how their administration can be devolved, because there is no specific administration as such. It comes together only on a rare and ad hoc basis. It is impossible to see how one can arrange for an annual budget for special grants through the block grant when special grants in Scotland arise perhaps only once every five years.
But whatever confusion there has been in the Chamber in the course of this debate, I must come back to the letter I received from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone). In our perplexity in the matter, we should not lose sight of the fact that he is the departmental Minister responsible for this issue. He said in his letter of 8th June that Baroness Stedman was
incorrect in stating (column 812) that:
…if any special, extraordinary circumstances should arise in which extra money needs quickly to be made available to save a very valuable work of art, then the Scottish Administration can come to the Treasury to make their case…'
My hon. Friend was saying that Baroness Stedman was incorrect. One can only


assume that what my hon. Friend is saying to me in other words is that in the event of special, extraordinary circumstances for which extra money is needed quickly it will not be open to the Scottish Administration to come to the Treasury.
I entirely accept that that is, in the form that has since been hammered out, without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom Government to spend money on whatever they please. After all, as we frequently remind ourselves in these debates, Parliament is sovereign. If we decided that we wished to spend special money on education, housing or hospitals in Scotland, we could do so, whatever we had already done in the block grant. But we certainly do not expect to do so, and English Members certainly do not expect to be asked to do so on top of the block grant. It is plain that the same situation arises in respect of grants to museums and galleries.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will accept that it is not my purpose to confuse the matter any further. But it is only fair to point out that, whereas the hon. Gentleman is quoting from a letter to himself from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister kindly passed to me earlier a letter to Lord Haig signed by Lady Stedman. In the letter she says:
I had in mind the National Land Fund and not special purchase grants.

Mr. Cook: I entirely accept that. Of course, it is correct that if one looks at the speech by Baroness Stedman on Report and returns to the letter I received from my hon. Friend the Minister, one finds a specific reference to the National Land Fund. One accepts that it is not devolved, although one must say that, if there is any fund connected with the art world that is quite discredited, it is that fund, which has been used very rarely and very sparingly to preserve works of national heritage. But it appears perfectly plain that grants of all kinds, both annual and special are devolved, are intended to be financed out of the block grant and will therefore be handled by a body which is separate, with no responsibility for the taxation proposals

which may have given rise to those works of art coming on to the market. That is what exercises the trustees of the National Galleries—not any concern about the political judgment or the cultural sensibilities of those who may be elected to the Assembly.
What I have said so far is of relevance to the special grant system. I should like to say a few words with relevance to the annual grants, because it is equally important that they should not be devolved. I wish to illustrate that by one case from a sale on the market last year, by the Earl of Rosebery, who offered the painting of Madame de Pompadour, by Drouais to the Treasury in place of estate duty.
The Treasury declined to purchase this picture in exchange for estate duty. Instead it was purchased out of an annual grant, the annual grant of the National Gallery of England and Wales, not that of Scotland. The money then went into the family of the Earl of Rosebery and from there was sent to the Treasury to pay for estate duty.
It might he said that this was an unnecessary and cumbersome procedure. Nevertheless, it was satisfactory in that the work of art was retained and is in a public collection. It was also reasonably fair in that the Treasury paid the money for the annual grant to the National Gallery, which in turn paid it to the Earl of Rosebery, who in turn paid it to the Treasury, so that we were back where we started.
That system operated under the present situation because it was the Treasury which was providing the annual grant and it was the Treasury which received the estate duty. I invite the House to reflect on what the situation would be after devolution. In that situation, when the annual grants for the National Galleries of Scotland come out of the block grants, the position would be as follows. If the National Galleries of Scotland chose to purchase such a picture out of its annual grant that money would flow into the family of say, the Earl of Rosebery and from there into the Treasury. The net result would be that the Scottish Administration would have had to purchase out of its own block grant, out of the funds provided to it for all of its resources in Scotland, a piece of the national heritage. That money would have eventually found


its way into the Westminster kitty. But there would be no guarantee of any corresponding increase in the block grant in any future year.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but perhaps he would like to have a rest at this moment. I have found what he has had to say quite fascinating. He has gone on at some length about this picture of Madame de Pompadour. Why was it that Scotland wanted this painting? Admittedly it belonged to the Earl of Rosebery—with strong Scottish connections—but as far as I know he had got it through marriage with the Rothschild girl some time ago and the painting was at Mentmore in England. What is the secret about this?

Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Member for having given me a rest from my address to the House, but I do not propose to follow him down the line of argument he has opened up. Scotland did not get the painting, nor was I suggesting that Scotland wished to have it. I chose that merely as an illustration of the position that arises if such a painting is released, whether by the Duke of Sutherland or the Duke of Buccleuch, and is purchased out of annual grant in Scotland. The situation would be that the money which was being used to offset estate duty would be coming out of the block grant for Scotland's administration, not from the Treasury which is the body that would be taking a decision on estate duty. That is why we want to reserve those functions.
I am conscious that there are other Members who wish to take part and I shall accordingly conclude my remarks. I do so by returning to the remark I made earlier and saying that there is nothing in what is proposed to suggest that in any way the reason for reserving these functions to a United Kingdom Parliament is that we are distrustful of the people who might be elected to the Scottish Assembly because we do not believe that they would be culturally inclined or culturally sensible. There is no such suggestion. The argument for retaining the functions of the annual and special grants at United Kingdom level is that that is the area where the financial arrangements make sense. It does not make sense to split those grants from the

tax system by putting a decision on the grant in another decision-making centre.

Sir David Renton: There are many of us who know, from meetings of the all-party Heritage Group outside the House, of the great interest that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) takes in these matters. I am sure that the whole House has listened with great interest and much respect to what he said against the Government's point of view on this matter.
As the hon. Member rightly pointed out, Scotland could be placed in the position of having to go cap in hand when it needs a special grant for some great art treasure or some addition to the National Library of Scotland for which the Scottish Executive might not have funds—retained from the block grant—to purchase. One of the problems that arise on certain occasions is that these opportunities to purchase arise rather suddenly. They are not the sorts of things for which one can budget in advance. The sums these days can be very considerable. What the hon. Gentleman has said must therefore carry weight.
9.30 p.m.
I wonder if I may divert the debate to the question of libraries, which have been very little mentioned. I happen to be master of the oldest law library, I believe, in England. The Advocates' Library in Edinburgh may be older. I should not like to question that. I am talking of the library of Lincoln's Inn, which has had a continuous life as a library since 1466 and is one of the finest law libraries in this country, with very considerable other parts of it as well.
One thing that I have learnt in the short time that I have been master of the library is that our great libraries cooperate with each other a great deal. I do not say that it would totally destroy co-operation, but it would be a most unfortunate situation if the Scottish National Library were to be subject to quite different financial arrangements from those of the British Library.
If hon. Members will turn to page 63 of the Bill as it left our House and went to the Lords—which is really the copy on which we have to work for the purpose of these Lords amendments—they will see from line 36 that the British Library


Act 1972 is not included among the statutes listed in the groups of subjects reserved for the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Executive.
I have no doubt that it was right for the British Library Act to be excluded from operation in Scotland in that way, but it will create a strained situation. The British Library—which, after all, is a national library for the United Kingdom—will be able to continue to get its funds out of moneys provided by Parliament, at the behest of the Secretary of State, as provided in Section 5 of the British Library Act. That is how the British Library will continue to get its funds. But the Scottish National Library, which, we are told, is to become a responsibility of the Scottish Executive, will have to get its funds, somehow, out of the block grant.
This is an unfortunate disparity in method and principle of financial support between two great libraries which cooperate with each other and which ought to be treated, I suggest, in just the same way. I do not complain at the Government's having treated the British Library in the way that they have. I must make that quite clear.
So much for libraries, but pursuing the theme of financial disparities, to which attention has been drawn in the debate—especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—I wonder whether hon. Members would care to look at page 50, which is the one with which we are immediately concerned on this Lords amendment. The heading of Part II of Schedule 10 is
 Matters not included in the groups
and item 5 is
Grants for specific purposes relating to reserved functions of local authorities.
The Government in this case, in their wisdom, have recognised that where we have grants for specific purposes for local authorities it is best to keep them out of the block grant for the Assembly, although, logically speaking, if museums, galleries and libraries are to be considered at all, they, too, should be treated—because they will often need grants for specific purposes—in the same way as are the reserved functions of local authorities. That would have meant a degree of financial consistency—a pattern running through this complicated maze of admini-

stration. But no, it seems that we are to have as many disparities as possible.
I accuse no one of any kind of deception. I know Lady Stedman as a persona; friend, although as a political opponent. I certainly would not attribute any kind of mistake to her. She is a most meticulous person. But she had to cope with an interesting and well-founded case which was made against the Government in another place. I should have thought that what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) has, if anything, reinforced that case.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making great play with regard to the debate and decision that took place in the other place in relation to this amendment. Can he turn his mind to the same debate, but a different decision, which arose on the Wales Bill? There the debate was similar—it was taken by my noble Friend Lord Donaldson as the Government Minister—but the decision was totally different. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to rest his case on a debate and a decision, obviously the debate and decision on the Wales Bill were totally different.

Sir D. Renton: The Minister is asking us to treat Wales and Scotland as though they were one and the same sort of place. That is a solecism on the hon. Gentleman's part. It is the sort of mistake that, for weeks, both sides of the House have managed to avoid, under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, during these many interesting discussions. The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that I have been making great play of this matter. I have not. I made a mere passing reference to what had occurred in the debate on the Scottish side of the problem. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not expect me to go any further in answering the point that he has just made.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Sir D. Renton: I shall give way.

Mr. Dalyell: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about to resume his seat.

Sir D. Renton: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was leaning forward in his characteristic manner, inviting me to give way, as I so gladly always do to him.
Having, I hope, made something of a case to answer on the question of libraries, I should like to turn to the question of museums and galleries. As the House knows, my roots are largely in Scotland. I know Scotland well. I think that the great gallery next to the university in Glasgow is one of the finest galleries of Victorian art in the world, and certainly in Europe. It is a magnificent gallery, and the collection is beautifully displayed. The National Galleries of Scotland in Edinburgh are also very fine. I have visited various museums and galleries in different parts of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North made a good point when he said that the present system works well. From personal experience I know that it works well. One does not have to be accused of being a reactionary if one says that if something is already working well it is important not to change it.
For that reason and for the various other reasons which have been advanced in this debate, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will have a degree of personal authority for making a decision in this matter. Governments vary in their relation to junior Ministers. However, the best Governments, such as the one in which I once served, give a great deal of discretion to junior Ministers. I hope that the hon. Member is armed with sufficient discretion to decide whether to maintain this resistance to the case put forward so ably from the Opposition Benches.

Mr. George Thompson: I want to take up one or two of the arguments put forward in this very interesting debate. I refer for a moment to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), who in a certain sense could be described as my constituent. He referred to the Glasgow art gallery. I think that the existence of this gallery is testimony to the fact that the people of Scotland are capable of producing those who can run art galleries and who care about these matters.
I do not see why, if a project is going well under the present system, it should not be a subject for devolution. The fact that it is going well could mean that it would go better under a devolved system. I do not accept that these institutions must necessarily fare worse under

devolution than they do under the present system. Indeed, I take the opposite view.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) spoke about the interesting problem of the recycling of art moneys because of the way these matters are operated. Surely, as between the Assembly and this House it should be possible to operate with flexibility and common sense. I am sure that it can be operated with common sense from the Scottish side, and I do not see why the people of England and Wales should not be capable of the same common sense.
I take up a comment made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). In the course of his remarks, it struck me that he was talking not about a United Kingdom heritage at all. The heritage is a western European heritage. So many of the works of art which we are pleased to look upon as part of a United Kingdom or Scottish heritage were not produced in these islands at all. Therefore, we must raise our sights from these islands and look to the fact that these artefacts, of whatever kind, were very often made furth these islands, and the fact that we possess them at the moment does not give us a prescriptive right to call them our own as though we had created them.
When I go to Bruges, Vienna or Paris, I do not look at works of art and say to myself "This is such and such a country's art." I think of it as part of my own heritage because I am convinced that I belong to this western European Christian tradition, and the fact that I am a Scot does not detract from that fact.
To say that only rich countries can compete is quite disgraceful. To suggest that poor countries have no place because they cannot afford to buy these works of art is quite incredible.

Mr. Raison: My point was that nowadays the great pictures go for very high prices. I was saying that if a country was not very rich, it would not have much chance of buying such treasures at short notice.

Mr. Thompson: I am glad to exonerate the hon. Member from any crude materialism. However, I think he will agree that it is rather unsatisfactory that the position he has described should exist.

Mr. Raison: It is what it will be.

Mr. Thompson: The Minister said that this Lords amendment was paternalism of the worst kind. I agree with him. Throughout our long debates on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill, I have been struck by the fact that we in Wales and in Scotland are being treated in a paternalistic way by this House. I do not want fathers or mothers in this House. I want to find brothers and sisters. I want a fraternal attitude from this House and not a paternal one. I find myself in complete agreement with the Minister on this. I believe that the Scottish Assembly will be able to decide best what is right for Scotland, as I indicated in my remarks on the city of Glasgow art gallery.
9.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) referred to local politics playing a part. What he really meant, and what the Tories have been saying endlessly, is that the Scots cannot be allowed to decide for themselves. I cannot accept that argument. The hon. Member says he can accept that the day-to-day management of art galleries and libraries should be devolved but that the great decisions should not. I absolutely disagree with him.
However, I agree with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who made a grand contribution to our debate. The Scots are not Philistines, and all wisdom does not reside in London. There are people in Scotland who are as well qualified as anyone to take decisions about our galleries and libraries.
We must strive to be generous to the people of Scotland and Wales. We must not be narrow-minded and mean-spirited, but must be open-minded and large-hearted. We must devolve as much as we can and show confidence in the people of Scotland and Wales. In that spirit I support the Minister tonight.

Mr. George Robertson: In a number of these debates on Lords amendments I have highlighted the fact that a large number of the amendments are before us solely because of the voting of hereditary peers in another place. It is ironic but characteristic that this amendment is here on a vote of 74 to 46—ostensibly a majority of 28. However, without the

hereditary peerage the amendment would have been lost by 19 votes.
Those of us who study the debates in another place in greater detail than merely assessing those who voted have noted the spirit of these amendments. It is a spirit of mean and grudging acceptance of devolution as a concept and it shows a willingness to put as many obstacles as possible in the way of creating a strong and viable Assembly. We must judge this amendment in that light.

Mr. Raison: Has it not occurred to the hon. Member and those who talk about the voting figures of hereditary peers that the hereditary peers seem rather more assiduous in their attendance than the life peers?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member is right only in respect of trooping through the Lobbies. There is no indication that the participation in debates is any greater among hereditary peers than among life peers. The fact is that in our efforts to create an institution of the 1970s we are relying on a system which was evolved or created centuries before.
It is clear that this amendment was created because of a view which was articulated here today by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). It is a view which is held strongly in another place—that the Assembly should not be trusted with looking after the elements of Scottish life that are of an esoteric nature. These, it believes, should be dealt with by our peers, both in another place and in society.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North said that the major reason for supporting this amendment was that the present system worked well, principally because it was removed from the arena of local politics. We are beginning to reach the nub of the objection to the devolution of this function. It is the fact that people will not be willing to trust the new Assembly.
There has been talk about local politicians. The chairman of the National Galleries of Scotland, who has been quoted on numerous occasions in this debate, was a local politician in Edinburgh. It is being said that the Assembly will not be trusted to make the great decisions that will lie on its shoulders after it is set up. That seems


to be the spirit of all the Lords amendments that are before us. I believe that for that reason alone we should oppose this Lords amendment.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is keen to demonstrate his ability at arithmetic, but he should bear in mind when criticising the other place that 10 years ago it was saved from extinction by the present Lord President of the Council, who is responsible for this Bill and who rarely appears in the House during our discussion of its provisions.
We find in what appears to be a fairly straightforward part of the devolution argument that the Government's plans, even after all these months, are far from clear on this aspect of the Bill. Indeed, that applies to the Bill as a whole.
Two letters have passed across the Table in an effort to clarify the Government's position. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge when he replies to the debate that Baroness Stedman was referring to the National Land Fund and not to special purchase grants, which was the information given to the House by the Minister when he intervened earlier. I do not suggest that at the next General Election the Stedman letter will be as hot a potato as was the Zinoviev letter in 1924, but it has been the hot potato in this debate. The problem remains because the Stedman letter excludes the National Land Fund and not the special purchase grants.
In his reply, the Minister might tell the House who is in favour of the Government's arrangements. We have heard from all the leading people involved in these institutions in Scotland not a word of support for the Government's proposals in this repect. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) was too ready to believe, in face of the evidence presented to him, the words of the Minister. If he considers the debate in the other place, he may think more carefully about how he will vote when the time comes.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for his contribution to the debate. He said it was naive to believe that, if the Government have their way with this legislation, some extra-special fund or pleading would still be available to the art world

in Scotland. I agree that in the modern world it is only the treasuries of the larger countries which can participate in purchases of this kind. That is why this amendment is so important.
The truth is that the Government, in their zeal to find something for the Assembly to do, are in the process of demoting the arts in Scotland. That was implied in the contributions of a number of right hon. and hon. Members, not least in the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for bringing in the question of the libraries, which, I agree, tended to be left aside in the opening part of the debate. He pointed out correctly that the Scottish Library would be severely disadvantaged under the Government's proposals.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) made an important contribution which I am sure we all appreciated. Sometimes I am not quite sure whether the National Gallery is in his constituency or mine, running as it does above the boundary line. The hon Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) in his contribution was talking not about devolution but of separation in the emotion that he put by way of argument.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clear up the confusion to which he added in opening the debate. I hope that he will help us to understand exactly what the Government's policy is in this matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The effect of the amendment would be that all purchase funds—annual purchase grants and special grants—in respect of Scottish museum and galleries would be reserved and the responsibility for special purchase grants alone in respect of the Scottish libraries would be reserved. So the amendment would cause the greatest confusion imaginable. That is one of the best reasons for rejecting it.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: But it was a Government amendment.

Mr. Ewing: It was a Government amendment intended to tidy up a ridiculous situation so that the Bill would come back in a sensible state.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) always asks for


examples of those in favour of what the Government are suggesting. I remind him that the galleries were never in favour of admission charges and that the Conservative Government applied such charges against their will, whereas in this case the National Library of Scotland is in favour of devolution of annual purchase grants and the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland and the Royal Scottish Museum both favour devolution of all purchase grants. In other words, the institutions with which we are dealing are in favour of what I am suggesting to the House. Having asked for and received that information the hon. Gentleman will, I hope, act on the advice that those institutions are giving, will not follow his own misguided feelings, and will join the Government in rejecting the Lords amendment.
Those hon. Members who have referred to the letter sought to brush aside the important references to the arrangements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) referred—
The above-mentioned arrangements are, of course, without prejudice to the freedom of action by the Government to make funds available in any case it thinks fit for any purchase…
That sentence in the letter is just as important as the points drawn on for the

sake of supporting the argument for accepting the amendment. If the House does not accept my advice it will leave the situation in the museums, art galleries and libraries of Scotland in a chaotic situation. For all these reasons, I ask the House to accept my advice and to disagree with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the guillotine falls, may I draw attention to the point made in another place by Lord Robbins? There is a special problem in Scotland—namely, the fact that the trustees of the Getty foundation have on interest more money at their disposal than has almost any national gallery in the world. In this situation, unless there are vast sums of ready money potentially available, the problem of the Scottish galleries—

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 262.

For Division No. 282 See c. 479.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Ten o'clock.

Lords amendments nos. 143 and 144 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: no. 146, in page 51, line 22, at end insert:
(".The initiation or holding of referenda.")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 257.

[Division List No. 283 see c. 483]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 155, 161, 162, 165, 168, 170, 176, 179 and 183 disagreed to.

Amendments made to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment no. 183: in page 48, line 34, at end insert:
'Insulation of nearby buildings from noise and vibration attributable to the use of aerodromes'.

In page 61, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 41 and insert:
'Not included, except so far as relating to the insulation of buildings near aerodromes against aircraft noise and vibration and except for—

(a) the matters dealt with in sections 30 to 32; and
(b) those dealt with in sections 6 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 20, 34 and 36, so far as relating to the operation of aerodromes.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendments nos. 195, 198 and 203 disagreed to.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment no. 203: in page 67, line 50, at end insert:
'The Transport Act 1978 (c.).

Not included, except so far as relating to inland waterway transport and grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight haulage by rail and except for the matters dealt with in sections 5(1) to (4) and 6 to 8 so far as relating to road service licences or permits under section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 (c.731).'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendments nos. 216 to 219 and 222 disagreed to.

Schedule 14

INTERVENTION BY SECRETARY OF STATE IN PLANNING MATTERS

Lords amendment: no. 223, in page 76, line 43, at end insert:
("section 93
section 96").

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 260.

[Division List No. 284 see c. 487]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 224 to 227 and 231 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 140 to 142, 145 147 to 154, 156 to 160, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169, 171 to 175, 177, 178, 180 to 182, 184 to 194, 196, 197, 199 to 202, 204 to 215, 220, 221, 228 to 230 and 232 to 236 agreed to.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to the Wales Bill (Allocation of Time) may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

SCOTLAND BILL

Lords amendments again considered.

Schedule 17

REFERENDUM

Lords amendment no. 237, in page 89, line 17, after ("day") insert (", not less than six weeks after the making of the Order,")

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment, inserted at Report stage, requires the Scottish referendum to be held not earlier than six weeks from the date on which the draft referendum Order in Council is confirmed by Parliament.
The Government believe that such a provision is unnecessary since the referendum order can be expected to include the date for the referendum and the Government have given no one any reason to suppose that they will propose an unreasonably short period between the laying of the order and the date of the referendum.
However, even though they consider statutory provision unnecessary, the Government do not consider that a minimum of six weeks is in itself an unreasonable period for the campaign, and in view of the concern expressed in the other place on this score they are prepared to recommend acceptance of the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 238, in page 89, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 40 and insert ("No sum shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund whether by Order in Council under this Schedule or otherwise for the purposes of the referendum, save that an Order in Council")

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment relating to referendum expenses was agreed on a Division by 77 votes to 54 during the Third Reading debate in another place.
There was one point that we attempted to explain in another place, but we were not very successful. We believe that the amendment would be totally ineffective in securing the result intended by the Opposition in another place—or,indeed, any result at all. It rests on a complete misconception about the ways in which money is obtained from Parliament, and it would be quite wrong to leave the House under any illusions about this.
The amendment was represented in another place as a fetter on Ministers' powers. In reality, it would be a fetter on Parliament itself—that is to say, a prohibition against a future Appropriation Act voting money for particular purposes. That, of course, could not be.
The amendment has been attached to paragraph 5 of schedule 17. That paragraph represents a small derogation from paragraph 4, which allows an Order in Council to apply any provision of the

Representation of the People Acts. Under section 20(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1949, the expenses of returning officers are charged on the Consolidated Fund. The view taken on the Referendum Act 1975 was that this should not happen on the occasion of a referendum; and so paragraph 5 of schedule 17 duly provides that their expenses should instead be met out of Votes. There is nothing here about charging expenses on the Consolidated Fund.
But the Lords amendment assumes that a sum could be charged on the Consolidated Fund
by Order in Council under this Schedule or otherwise".
It could not be so charged. A sum can be charged on the Consolidated Fund only if an Act of Parliament so provides. The Scotland Bill does not so provide. There is no provision in the Schedule or anywhere else whereby referendum expenses of any description can be charged on the Consolidated Fund. These expenses will be ministerial expenses, as mentioned in clause 76, falling on a Vote in the usual way.
The main debate in another place centred on the subject of the Government's attitude to referendum expenses. We have made the position clear many times, and, therefore, I can be brief. The Government do not propose, as we had made clear time and again, to make public funds available for organisations on either side of the referendum campaign. I do not believe that there has been any serious disagreement with that decision, except from the Plaid Cymru Party in respect of the referendum in Wales.
There are many difficulties involved, not the least of which is the clear problem of the organisation of umbrella organisations on either side of the argument Nor do the Government—I should make this clear, although I think that there is a case for it—propose to issue any leaflet or pamphlet explaining the provisions of the Scotland Act. I think we are being fair in making that clear, because there would be a stateable case for saying that on an important referendum the Government should issue a document making clear to the public the nature of the Act's provisions which they were being asked to approve or disapprove.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) says "We do not trust you." I think that that argument is without any foundation. It is the sort of political remark that we would expect from him. But, since that view is held, we do not want to be accused of being partial in any way and the Government are making clear now, almost as a self-denying ordinance, that we do not propose to issue a leaflet, although I believe that a case could be made for doing so.
If that is causing concern to the hon. Gentleman or to anybody else, let me make it clear that we do not propose to take that step. We are, on reflection, satisfied that the issue will be made clear by the people who take part in the campaign and by the media of all types in the referendum campaign.
I must make it clear that devolution is Government policy and has had a leading place in the Government's legislative proposals throughout this Parliament, both in this Session and in the Session immediately preceding it. Ministers will continue to recommend and speak in favour of the Government's devolution policy, just as they would support any other important policy of the Government. In so doing, they believe that in the use of resources there is no case for departing from the customary practice followed in espousing any Government policy.
Is it to be seriously supposed that Ministers from a point in time not specified in the amendment are to be treated as different beings if they should have the temerity to espouse Government policy on devolution to Scotland?
I think that the amendment is seriously misconceived and makes nonsense of Paragraph 5 of the schedule. But behind it is a totally unjustified suspicion that somehow the Government will manipulate the use of taxpayers' money to give an advantage to one side or the other in the referendum campaign. I have tried in some detail to make clear that there is no foundation in that allegation. What the Government have stated to be the policy is entirely proper. I believe that this amendment is unjustified, and I hope that the House will not accept it.

Mr. Brittan: I do not propose to go into the technical points raised by the Minister. If his view is that the amendment is not sufficient to achieve the purpose that he understands the Lords to be wanting, it is his responsibility and duty to provide the assistance of the Government to table an amendment to achieve it.
The amendment arose because of the failure of the Government in the other place to give adequate assurances about their role in the referendum campaign. Certain explanations have been given, but the anxieties expressed in the other place will not have been allayed either by what was said by Ministers there or by what the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight.
It is plain from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Government intend to use all the facilities of the Government at public expense to campaign in favour of a "Yes" vote in the referendum. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said negates from that. In the Lords there were some equivocal answers by Ministers, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman has now made the position clear.
We say simply, shorn of the technicalities, that it is wrong that public money should be spent on espousing one side of a cause being put to the people in what is supposed to be a fair contest in a referendum. It is clear that the Government have said that they are not going to give money to outsiders, to the two contesting parties, and reasons have been given as to why that should not be done.
I am not arguing in favour of money being given to the two contesting sides. What I am arguing is that the Government should accept that there are two contesting sides and that it would be wrong for the Government to put their considerable resources and propaganda machine in favour of one side rather than the other.
The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to say that the Government do not propose to issue an independent leaflet or authoritative, objective leaflet. He was wise to eschew that course. But that does not really dispose of the matter. A great many questions were asked in


the other place about what the Government were going to do, and most unsatisfactory answers were given.
There was the question, for example, about ministerial cars. As far as political activities and General Election activities are concerned, there is no difficulty in distinguishing between a party political activity and a governmental activity. There are rules about these matters. We are saying that in a highly controversial referendum campaign the "Yes" side should not have the unfair advantage of very considerable Government resources without any competing provision of resources for the other side.
It is perfectly possible for the Government, in going about their business, to distinguish between ordinary Government business relating to the continuing government of Scotland or of the United Kingdom and political speeches made during a referendum campaign. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is any difficulty in doing that.
It may be Government policy to have devolution, but once the referendum is declared there is a difference. It is not sufficient to say "When is the referendum started?" That is not a problem. If we do not want Government resources to be thrown into the referendum campaign, we can and ought to provide that they should not be.
At the moment, the Government stress how important it is that the Bill should be passed and that the referendum should achieve the result that they want. They stress what is described as the manifesto commitment. That was the phrase bandied about in another place in favour of Government involvement in the campaign. The Minister and his colleagues are in error in thinking that we are saying that they should not campaign. The Government are perfectly entitled to send all the Ministers who can be persuaded to speak on this issue up and down Scotland. All we object to is the taxpayer paying for that campaign. How can it be said, if we are seeking to set up a referendum in which the two sides have a fair chance of putting their view, that we have done that if the scales are tilted in favour of one side from the word "go" by Government resources being thrown in?
11.0 p.m.
The arguments against our view in another place were ludicrous. I do not know whether it was of his own motion or whether he was put up to it by the Government, but the heavy legal weight of Lord Wedderburn was wheeled in to raise a series of objections on which he threw up his hands in horror.
To illustrate the poverty of the argument, let us examine those objections. It was suggested that what their Lordships wanted to do was not clear. Lord Wedderburn asked a series of questions in terrorem. He asked whether the Government could not issue a White Paper if the amendment were passed. The answer is that the Government ought not to be able to issue any more White Papers. We have had enough. The House and Parliament are coming to a view, and if we pass the legislation it will be up to the people to decide in the referendum. It would be quite wrong for the Government to issue a further White Paper. I do not find that question difficult.
Lord Wedderburn asked whether the Government could send the Secretary of State to address business men. Well, really! Someone as experienced as Lord Wedderburn should know the answer to that question perfectly well. If the Secretary of State is addressing business men about Government policy for dealing with the economic problems of Scotland, of course he can do that and it can be paid for out of public funds. If the object of the exercise is to address business men in a sort of pro-devolution rally, the answer to Lord Wedderburn's question, once the campaign is under way, ought to be "No". If the object of the Secretary of State is to do partly the one and partly the other, the Civil Service has no difficulty in dealing with such problems. The demarcation problems are not insoluble.
Finally, Lord Wedderburn pulled out of his pocket the legal trump card. Supposing the amendment were passed, he said, and it became illegal for the Government to spend public money during the referendum campaign in order unfairly to tilt the scales in favour of one side, what sort of illegality would that be? That is an unworthy question from so distinguished a lawyer. It is clear what sort of illegality it would be. It would


be exactly the same sort of illegality as a breach of any of the hundreds of provisions in the Act if it is passed. There are a large number of rules and regulations concerning how the referendum should be conducted, and everyone from the Secretary of State down to the humblest clerk is capable of being in breach of them. The law will not be short of means of dealing with such a breach. They will depend entirely on whether the breach is discovered before or after the referendum and the nature of the illegality.
To say that we cannot introduce a restriction on the expenditure of funds because no one knows what sort of illegality will be imported if someone breaks that restriction is an absurd argument.
It is clear that the Government are saying that, having piloted through the House a highly controversial measure and having decided that it should be considered in a referendum, they are perfectly entitled to spend taxpayers' money in favour of one side of the case. That is a proposition that we shall not support. We support the amendment. It is wrong that the Government reject the amendment, even if there are technical objections to it.

Mr. Sillars: I keep thinking about what happened during the Common Market campaign, but that is not the matter that I wish to raise with the hon. Gentleman. We know what position the Government take. Is it not possible that there might be a General Election in October and that there might be a Conservative Government before we come to the referendum? I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State shakes his head, but I am only saying "might". Is the hon. and learned Gentleman committing a Conservative Government, elected before the referendum, to stay a political neutral throughout the referendum campaign? Is he saying that a Conservative Government will stick to what he is saying and will spend no money in the campaign? Is he saying that Ministers will have to use their own transport rather than ministerial transport?

Mr. Brittan: I have said that Ministers are welcome to make speeches in the campaign on whatever side they choose. We are not trying to muzzle Ministers. If they think that it will help to get the

right vote, they can say that it is Government policy. Whether that will help them to get the right vote is something on which I venture to have doubts. All that we are objecting to is the spending of public money in one direction or the the other.
If the amendment is made part of the Bill, which is what we are seeking, a Conservative Government will abide by that. They would be bound by the law. Unlike the present Government, they would not have the habit of getting caught out in breach of the law. There is no difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Dewar: What puzzles me is what the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks the wicked Government might do and what the amendment seeks to prevent. All that he has suggested so far is that Ministers might have free travel up north by confusing ministerial and political engagements. He has referred to ministerial cars. Lord Kirkhill dealt with ministerial cars in the debate to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. Will the hon and learned Gentleman give me some specific examples of the abuses that he thinks the Government will perpetrate and that he thinks the amendment will prevent?

Mr. Brittan: It is not a matter of abuses. Lord Kirkhill said in the debate that he could not answer the question off the cuff.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Brittan: At a later stage he attempted to deal with the matter, but in a wholly unsatisfactory way in the view of their Lordships.
The whole use of the Government propaganda machine would be available, whether by broadcasting, writing, organising meetings, attending meetings or in any other way. All that would be open to the Government. The facilities of researchers, back-room boys writing speeches, advisers special or otherwise, and even civil servants are available. That is Government policy. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) shakes his head. He asked the question. If he does not like the answer, I cannot help that. He will get the answer.
If the Government chose to set aside five civil servants to write pro-referendum "Yes" speeches, that would be within their rights unless an amendment of this sort were accepted. It would cost public money, but the Government would be entitled to take that course. I do not see why one side of the referendum should be financially weighted by public funds.

Mr. John Smith: Private funds.

Mr. Britton: The right hon. Gentleman mutters "Private funds". Yes, I think that that is right. Let those who wish to engage in the campaign do so fairly and fight according to the strength of those who support "Yes" and those who support "No". It is wrong to have the taxpayer contributing by putting his hand into his pocket at the behest of the Government to support one side rather than the other.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: During the passage of the Bill it appears that the Government have made it unnecessarily difficult to spend public money during the campaign. It appears to be the intention of another place in the amendment to make it virtually impossible to do so during the campaign.
The object of those who first proposed the referendum in an altruistic manner was that it would be a democratic test of the will of the Scottish people about what form of government they wanted for the future. Some hon. Members tried to abuse the referendum concept by using it as a stumbling block to the progress of democracy. We saw how such people proposed the referendum and then how they introduced the 40 per cent. stumbling block. Now, the Lords have produced another stumbling block. They see the financial bias in favour of the pro-devolutionists as an important factor in the campaign.
We have seen it all before—during the Common Market campaign, for example.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: indicated assent.

Mr. Canavan: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) nodding his head. The only time that I have been on the same side as he was during the Common Market campaign. The forces of the establish-

ment were against us on that occasion. The media were against us. During this campaign the media will be against us, with a few exceptions in the Scottish Press. The great forces of the British media will be aligned against us during the referendum campaign.
Nobody needs to argue about where The Daily Telegraph stands on devolution. It probably does not understand what devolution means, but it knows that it is against it since it is so reactionary that it is against most progressive matters. The same applies to the Daily Mail.
There are also the two-faced newspapers such as the Daily Express, which used to bring out one Scottish edition—printed in Manchester—which was so pro-devolution at one stage that it was like an organ of the Scottish National Party. Yet the edition printed south of the border was as imperialist, anti-devolutionist and anti-independence as ever. That is the two-faced attitude of parts of the press.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I agree about Government money being used to back up the "pro" campaign, but, in fairness, does the hon. Member accept that the Scottish press, by and large, is in favour of devolution? If, in addition, Government money is used to back it up, it will not be a fair referendum.

Mr. Canavan: We must distinguish between the newspapers which are printed and published in Scotland and those which are printed and published south of the border. There is a difference in the point of view expressed by both sets of newspapers.
The Sun, for example, tries to promote its sales north of the border by the girls on page three to compete with the girls on page three of the Daily Record. What will The Sun do during the devolution campaign? It might even replace the girls on page three by anti-devolution propaganda in order to influence the people to vote in a particular way. But I think that sales would drop, for more reasons than one. These are the skulduggery tactics used by newspapers. They even use sex appeal to promote views about devolution.
Without public expenditure on the other side of the campaign to level the


matter out, we shall have a biased campaign. I remind the House that during the Common Market campaign there was considerable public expenditure. The Government took sides. They used public money to produce one pro-Common Market leaflet and one anti-Common Market leaflet. But they were not completely unbiased, because they used public money for a third leaflet which was even more pro-Common Market than the so-called neutral pro-Market leaflet. Two leaflets were in favour of joining and only one was against. I cannot remember Conservative Members complaining about an abuse of public expenditure at that time.
11.15 p.m.
Apart from the media, the well-financed big business machine north and south of the border will campaign against devolution. We have seen it already. The CBI and the Scottish CBI and the chambers of commerce, the people who have done their best to ruin British industry and commerce, will claim that the over-centralised nature of the British economy is such a great thing and that devolution will present such a dreadful threat that they, too, will be campaigning against the devolution cause.
These were the same people who campaigned so vehemently for us to stay in the Common Market. I can remember the posters that were put up in my constituency—and, no doubt, in the others too—carrying all the rash promises that if there was a "Yes" vote to stay in Europe there would be jobs for the boys. Where are the jobs? Hardly a single job has been created in this country by the Common Market, apart from a few jobs for Roy Jenkins and his mates. Yet I can think of thousands of jobs which have been lost because of our entry into the EEC. We were subjected to all that highly financed propaganda during the referendum campaign, so the precedent is certainly there.
Apart from the forces of the media and big business, a few Labour Party Members, misguided perhaps, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), will campaign against devolution. My hon. Friend should realise that the vast majority of the opponents to devolution will be on the Opposition side. They will include particularly the Right wing

of the Tory Party in this House and the House of Lords. Why on earth do lion. Members think that there was such opposition to the Bill from, as I have previously described them, the vandals in the House of Lords who tried to butcher and destroy the Bill? They may even try next week to inflict further damage on it. It is obvious that they take that view because they represent the interests of big finance. Take as an example the landowners such as the Duke of Buccleuch, who has more than a quarter of a million acres in Scotland. Then there is "Lord Pirelli", or is it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Gentleman's flow of oratory, but he should not mention Members of another place in a derogatory manner.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that it was derogatory to refer to the fact that the Duke of Buccleuch owned a quarter of a million acres. Many people believe that that is highly desirable—the Conservative Party, for example. Surely such a comment is not derogatory.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the whole matter must be taken in its context.

Mr. Dalyell: Only the weekend before last, the Labour chairman of our own region—my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and I share the central region—Mr. James Anderson, suggested that he and I and the vice-convener of the region. Charles Snedden, should share a platform in the "No" campaign in Falkirk town hall and Bo'ness town hall, and the offer was echoed equally by the leader of the Labour group in the Lothian region.

Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend must realise that in the same way as he and James Anderson campaigned against the Labour Party, the trade union movement and the whole Labour movement during the Common Market campaign, they will be against the Labour movement during this campaign. They will not be speaking in any way for the Labour and trade union movement in Scotland. I do not even know whether James Anderson will be speaking for the Labour group on the Central regional council, and I have never


known them to be in the avant garde of Socialism either.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In the referendum campaign of course my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I will speak for what we believe is right. Despite the fact that a considerable number of institutions say that they are in favour of devolution, I trust that they will not deny us the right to put our views, which are very sincerely held.

Mr. Canavan: I am not doubting my hon. Friend's sincerity, but I would strongly advise him and his colleagues during the campaign to look around at some of their bedfellows, because they will be very odd bedfellows indeed.
As I was saying—and I shall not mention them by name, Mr. Deputy Speaker—there are certain people in the House of Lords, one of whom has got more than a quarter of a million acres of land in Scotland and another of whom is chairman of Pirelli as well as chairman of the Tory Party, and who stole—or, rather, his company stole—£9 million from the Post Office. He has also got more than 40,000 acres of land in Scotland. Is it any wonder that people like that, a load of thieves and rogues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too far. He may not have mentioned any Member of another place by name, but there were imputations and he must withdraw them.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw.

Mr. Canavan: I did not mention any member of the House of Lords by name, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was apparent from certain remarks that were made that the imputation was there, and the hon. Member must withdraw it.

Mr. Canavan: I was referring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to their ancestors who stole the land from the people of Scotland. They were thieves and rogues. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Ingenious, but not satisfactory. The hon. Member must withdraw.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must withdraw.

Mr. Canavan: I was referring to a historical fact that many of the members of the House of Lords are descended from thieves and rogues, and that is a fact which no one who knows anything can deny.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has changed his stance. That was not what he said in the first place, and he knows that he must withdraw the imputation that he made originally. Now, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw, and then the matter will be closed.

Mr. Canavan: If I made any imputation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was on the fact that certain members of the House of Lords are descended from thieves and rogues—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that others are mixed up with companies which steal public money. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting himself into somewhat of a verbal tangle. He knows perfectly well that he made an imputation earlier, not by name but by inference, about one particular noble Lord, and I desire him to withdraw that imputation.
Now, I suggest that the hon. Member withdraws and we get on with the debate.

Mr. Canavan: I honestly do not see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I should withdraw something which is true. I have said nothing which I would not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should withdraw the remark that he made earlier, which was an imputation against a noble Lord. I suggest that the hon. Member does so forthwith. Mr. Canavan.

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member going to withdraw the imputation which he made?

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must warn the hon. Member once more. Will he withdraw? Is the hon. Member going to withdraw?
I direct the hon. Member forthwith to withdraw from the House for the rest of this day's sitting.

The hon. Member then withdrew from the Chamber.

Sir David Renton: Quite apart from the last incident, which involved a point of order and to which I shall not refer, the supporters of the Bill on the Labour Benches are getting into a very strange conflict with each other. On the one hand, we have the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) in effect pleading that the Government should do something to counteract the alleged activities against devolution of Scottish newspapers, industrialists, landowners and others, and on the other hand we have the Minister of State parading the political and financial virtue of non-intervention. Quite rightly we shall not have any pamphlets, but, somehow or of other, the Minister of State has been trying to convince the House that the Government will run this campaign without incurring any public expenditure in advancing the cause of devolution.
Leaving aside the obvious administrative expenses which are referred to in the schedule, some consideration must surely be given to the expenses which Ministers will incur as they go about the country during the referendum campaign, and they will no doubt be trying to explain and to excuse the almost incomprehensible provisions of the Bill and the kind of administrative set-up which the Scottish people will wish to have explained to them if they are to understand it at all.
In those circumstances, I think that we should know the Government's intention. Will they allow Ministers carte blanche to go about the country to take part in the referendum campaign, using their ministerial cars, accompanied perhaps by their secretaries and possibly by experts in the Scottish Office? If so, we should consider what provisions of the Bill entitle them to do that. Also, we are entitled to try to find out from the Minister of State whether his parade of virtue of non-intervention was a mere pretence.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will no doubt be taking part in the campaign. I would think that if Ministers are to use their cars to go about, the least that the Government could do is to lend him an Under-Secretary's car, with a Government chauffeur, perhaps wearing the hon. Member's family tartan, or something like that, in order to differentiate the temporary different status of the Government driver. Fair is fair. I know that the Minister of State was trying to convince the House that the Government will be fair, but, in view of the valiant part played by the hon. Member for West Lothian in trying to drive some kind of sense into our proceedings time and time again, the least the Government could do for him, if Ministers are going to use their cars, is to let him have a Government car too.

Mr. Dalyell: I must make it clear that I do not share that view.

Sir D. Renton: In that case, I commend the hon. Gentleman's modesty and public spirit. I only hope that the Government will follow the example which, obviously, he would like to set them, because he does not wish to call upon any public resources in this matter. That is a splendid attitude.
As, I believe, we are discussing these amendments together, I wonder whether I may refer to Lords amendment no. 238. The Minister of State pointed out, quite rightly in my opinion, that it is very strangely worded as it stands. The Government could have invited us to put it right. As I understand it, they are simply going to accept the Lords amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I had better make it clear that I shall invite the House to disagree with amendment no. 238. We have already agreed to amendment no. 237, but I spoke against amendment no. 238 and we will vote against it.

Sir D. Renton: I am very sorry; perhaps owing to the hubbub in the House at the time I misheard the Minister. But, quite clearly, that seems to be an amendment which, from the technical point of view, needs to be rectified. I would have thought that the right thing for the Government to do was to have the technical amendment made and to accept


the principle that the Lords had carried. That would have been a very easy thing to do. It would have been a sensible thing to do, and it would have gone a little way towards removing some of the doubts that we feel after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sillars: What is at stake here is a question of principle—whether or not a Government are entitled to campaign for their own policy. Outside of the Ulster situation—I am not an expert on that—we have had one previous experience of a referendum, and that was the Common Market referendum. There there was no shadow of doubt in any quarter of the House about the Government's entitlement to campaign for their policy on the referendum. Indeed, before we ever dreamed of a referendum in this House the Conservative Government campaigned with public money on behalf of their White Paper, on behalf of the vote, in principle, in the White Paper and on behalf of the vote on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "That was not on behalf of the referendum."] But the principle was exactly the same. Are not the Government entitled to campaign for their declared policy?
11.30 p.m.
At the time of the White Paper on the European Communities, popular versions were placed in post offices. Easy guides to Europe were available all over the place at public expense. No one from the Conservative Party and very few from the Labour Party objected to that. There was general recognition of the Government's right to explain their policy to the people.
Then, on the actual referendum, with a Labour Government in power, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)—who is no longer with us, for a variety of reasons—has explained, the Government of the day put out their own version. They put the Government recommendation on the ballot paper—something which will be missing on this occasion. No doubt the Minister of State will say that that is an example of the Government being ultra-fair.
Not only in that, but in other areas of Government policy, there is evidence of

the Government believing that they ate entitled—with agreement to this effect in the House—to campaign for their own declared policy. Let us consider the current wages policy. We are talking now about phase four. When phase one was introduced, 23½ million households received a document from the Government explaining counter-inflation policy, so-called, without any complaint at all from Members on the Conservative Front Bench or Back Benches or from any part of the House on this side. There was a general recognition that the Government were entitled to campaign for whatever happened to be Government policy at that time.
In a sense, by refusing to commit the Government to the full extent possible, given the precedents, Ministers are being unfair to the "Yes" side of the campaign. On any projection of the likely expenditure on the campaign in Scotland and that in Wales, there is no doubt where the money bags will lie. They will be very much in favour of the "No" vote. For a variety of reasons, the money will pour in on that side and the "Yes" vote will have difficulty in raising cash

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Ask the unions.

Mr. Sillars: The trade unions are not massively rich organisations. [Interruption.] I do not need to reply to that remark. If an election comes along in October or next year—[Interruption.] They are all getting upset at the prospect of a General Election this year instead of next year. In an election, the trade unions will not have a tremendous amount of money available in their political funds. Anyone who knows anything about trade union law knows that they cannot invade the general fund for political purposes. So limited funds are available to them. The same restriction does not apply to many companies and rich individuals who will weigh in on the "No" side.
Therefore, if we are talking about fairness, the balance is tilted against the people campaigning for Government policy. The Government have already admitted that they will not campaign to the full extent they could—given the precedent—and the Conservative Party now says that they should not campaign at all but should remain neutral. If the


Leader of the House intended to make a speech in Edinburgh in the afternoon, one somewhere in Stirling later on on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire, who is no longer with us, and one in Glasgow later still, apparently he will not have the facility of a Government car to take him around campaigning for Government business.
I asked the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) about the Conservative Party's attitude. He made much of the fact that he thought that it was unfair for the Government machine to be committed to a public policy campaign. If the amendment is not agreed to and we are left with the Bill as it left this House, and let us suppose for a second—I am sorry to upset my right hon. Friend on this point again—that a Conservative Government get in before the referendum, is the hon. and learned Gentleman still telling me what he told me in his intervention; that in no way would that Conservative Government involve themselves in campaigning as a Government against an Act which, they say, in their view it is not in the interests of the Scottish people to have implemented? Before the hon. and learned Gentleman answers me, I suggest that he has a word with the Member next to him, his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who would be the Secretary of State in that Cabinet, because there is no way in which he would give that hostage to fortune at this time.

Mr. Brittan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is absolutely no point in making any commitment of that kind when the whole object of the amendment which we are defending tonight is to make it illegal for a Government to do that? If that were to happen—which we shall with voice and vote support—of course a Conservative Government would obey the law. The hon. Gentleman finds that difficult to understand. I can appreciate that in view of the way the Labour Government have behaved, but if the law is not changed the position is a completely different one.

Mr. Sillars: We have dealt with one hypothetical situation which many hon. Members on this side believe will never occur. I am dealing with the other hypothetical situation which in about 25 min-

utes' time will occur when this amendment will be defeated. Would a Conservative Government then restrain themselves from taking part in the referendum campaign? It is noticeable that it was the hon. and learned Gentleman who answered and not the hon. Member for Cathcart, who would be the Secretary of State for Scotland in that eventuality.
We will go a little further into Conservative policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman must bear in mind that the Leader of the Opposition has committed the Conservative Party to referendums, probably on industrial relations. Is he telling us that, if the Conservative Party is returned to Government and if that Conservative Government produce a referendum Bill on industrial relations, part and parcel of that Bill will be a clause providing that the Conservative Government will not involve themselves in compaigning for the question they place upon the ballot paper? I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman now if he is prepared to make that commitment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] This matter is not irrelevant, because the hon. and learned Gentleman based the whole of his speech on principle. The principle is to be carried into law and the law is then to be applied. If a future Conservative Government engage in referendums on industrial relations, will they make that principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman enunciated part and parcel of their law?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Yes.

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman says "Yes". He has no chance of being involved in the next Conservative Government. That is why lie said "Yes" with such alacrity. What do the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby and the hon. Member for Cathcart say to that question?

Mr. Brittan: I think that the scales should be fairly weighed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the House is not prepared to listen to the answer, there is no point in the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) asking the question. Therefore, there is something to be said for a position as occurred with the European referendum in which money is provided by the public openly for both sides


of the campaign. There is something to be said for no side of the campaign having any kind of resources and the Government staying out.
Which solution should be followed cannot be considered in the abstract. I am saying that in this Bill the worst of both situations applies, because on the one hand no money is being given to both sides of the campaign; no money is being given to the "Noes"; all the money is being spent out of the public purse for the "Yes" side. Therefore, whatever solution might be worked out for another Bill relating to other matters, this solution is indefensible.

Mr. Sillars: That is a long and convoluted lawyer's answer which, in effect, amounts to saying that a Conservative Government will use the machinery of government if they are involved in a referendum on industrial relations. That makes humbug of every point the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby made in arguing that he based his case upon principle. If not, we look forward to the day when the Conservative Government donate money to the trade union movement to allow it to campaign against a policy of the Conservative Government. That is how absurd is the situation described by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have no doubt at all that at the end of the day the House will reject the point of view put forward by the hon. and learned Member.
I have a final point to make to my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). It is unfair for anyone on either side of the argument to say to my hon. Friends that there is something illegitimate about their campaigning with someone of a different party or different basic ideological philosophy. The point at stake is a much bigger one than that, and the debate should be conducted at a much higher level. The point applies to both sides of the House on this question, as it applied to both sides over the Common Market issue. I hope that my hon. Friends, with whom I disagree, with whom I shall debate and against whom I shall campaign, will not feel themselves constrained in any way by arguments of that kind.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: This debate is ending on the tone on which it commenced. The House of Lords has endeavoured to follow the policies which the Conservative Opposition have followed over the past two years in seeking to prevent Scotland from having any form of self-government. The exchange which has just taken place between the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is indicative of that.
I have not seen for some time a Front Bench Opposition spokesman caught out in the embarrassing fashion in which the hon. and learned Member was caught out in relation to the policies being followed. He advanced arguments on questions of principle, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said, and yet it appears that, in future referendums which the Conservative Party, if it ever gets into power, intends to implement, it will adopt a different position. It will campaign as a Government and will spend public money. Here we have a party which is against public expenditure coming out and preparing to spend public money in pursuing its own policies.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to present his propaganda as he wishes, but he ought to know that there is one place where sheer distortion will not carry any weight, and that is this House.

Mr. Wilson: I am quoting what has been said. The record indicates the position. If the hon. and learned Member reads the record tomorrow, he will understand that what I say is true. This will bounce back on him. The place where distortion applies is perhaps the Shadow Cabinet where this shabby trick was dreamed up, passed on to the House of Lords and then brought before this House in this fashion. It is indicative of the attitude that we have had from the Conservatives during the debate. They started out in favour of the Scottish Assembly. They passed through all sorts of phases and have now ended up with this shabby expedient of trying to prevent the Government from presenting their own policies.
I see nothing wrong with a Government being in a position to present


their policies to the public. The position is even stronger in this case. This is not a question of the Government giving information to the public to persuade them that the Executive's policy is correct. This is a case of the Government going out in the context of an Act of Parliament, where there is legislative as well as Executive sanction for the expenditure concerned. There are two reasons why the Government would find it legitimate to spend money.
11.45 p.m.
I wish to be critical of the Government. I believe that they are being far too fair. They have said that they will not issue a leaflet. They have adopted a self-denying ordinance and will not spend sums of public money to present their policies. They are prepared to trim the explanation behind the question in the referendum because of pressure which has been applied. They have been forced backwards, and I criticise the Government most strongly for not having the courage of their convictions and going out to present to the Scottish people what they presumably sincerely believe in—namely, the form of legislative devolution which is encompassed in the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is arguing strongly that the Government should come out and campaign and argue for the Assembly, which is what he believes in. Will he therefore explain why he and his colleagues have done their best to destroy this Government in votes of confidence in the last few weeks?

Mr. Wilson: The only vote of confidence in which we took part related to the reputation and policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had nothing at all to do with the Scotland Bill. It was the Government who made it a vote of confidence, and that was their choice. It should be remembered that a very large number of the unemployed in Scotland are in that position because of policies of the Labour Government.
I should like to return to the question which we are discussing, which is that of fairness. I have criticised the Government because I think that they should have been much more active in the promotion of the Scottish Assembly. Reference has been made by several hon. Members to the fact that there could

well be a shortage of money for those campaigning for the "Yes" vote, because reliance is now to be put purely on private funds.
We know about the money which will be produced from businesses in Scotland, and also from businesses in England. What the question has to do with businesses in England I do not know, but the Confederation of British Industry has indicated its opposition to these proposals and I have no doubt that it will persuade member companies to shell out to the "No" campaign. We shall end up, as in the Common Market referendum, with a situation in which the expenditure by the "No" campaign will far exceed that of the "Yes" campaign. In fact, those on the "No" side will seek to redress the weakness of their case by the length of their purses.
It is quite wrong, in a referendum which seeks to gain the opinion of the people, for the Government not to put out information about what devolution will mean. In addition, the Government have not supplied money in an attempt to redress the financial difficulties which will occur and they have not sought in any way to control the referendum expenditure.
We know that the Conservative Party intends to adopt the referendum system as part of its apparatus of government. If that is the case, and parties go into a referendum and say that they intend to make the referendum part of the apparatus of the modern State, it is high time that Parliament addressed itself to rules which would be generally applicable to referendums, to ensure that fairness exists, whatever the subject of a referendum might be. I am not satisfied that we have done it in this case.
The point was made that there might be illegitimate expenditure of public funds in support of the Scottish Assembly. I should be interested to know whether some of the business contributions will be deductible from the point of view of income tax. We may end up with some of the contributions coming to the "No" side resulting in a reduction in income tax or corporation tax payable and thereby leading to a reduction in public funds. But, whether or not one follows that example through, this amendment from the Lords is quite unsupportable.


It illustrates the mean-minded way in which the other place has approached the Bill, and I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: It is news to me that all this money is coming to the "No" campaign, but that is by the way.
I am a bit relaxed and light-hearted about this amendment. I listened to the debate in the other place when this question of cars was raised, and I thought that it was a bit churlish and unworthy of their Lordships. If the Minister of State or anyone else who has ministerial responsibilities wants to use a Government car in this context, I do not think that we should spend all this time complaining about it.
My reason for being light-hearted may be that I have the suspicion that these clouds of Ministers will not descend on Scotland during the campaign. If the truth be told, I suspect that the number of Ministers taking part in the campaign will be about approximate to the number of Ministers who have bothered to sit on the Treasury Bench during our debates. I have no nightmare about an expensive car being ordered for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to campaign for a "Yes" vote in Bathgate.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: They would be bound to get a "No" vote if he did.

Mr. Dalyell: If the Lord President wanted to come and join us, he should have a car. I suspect that the Home Secretary, shrewd politician that he is, will find better and more urgent things to do and will not come at all. He will be very wise in that respect. I suspect, too, that many of my senior colleagues will find that they have overwhelming duties elsewhere. Therefore, this is a bit of a non-issue. Let us put to bed this question about the use of Government cars. Do not let us get het up about it. Give the Minister of State his car, and the Under-Secretaries, too, and let them go about their business. None of us should complain about that.
What is altogether more serious is what the BBC and STV will do. I lay down the marker that I hope that they stick to the same scrupulous allocation of time

as they have during General Elections. I see no reason why they should not. I am sure that the BBC and STV will play fair. But that is a very important issue, unlike the one on which we have spent so much time.

Mr. Brittan: I am sure that the whole House regrets deeply the most unfortunate incident which rendered it necessary for the Chair to suspend the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) until the end of today's sitting. In all fairness, those of us who were sitting opposite saw the Government Chief Whip urging the hon. Member to withdraw what he said, and we regret that he felt it impossible to do so. We would like to have heard the remainder of his contribution to the debate.
Turning to the matter that we are debating, it is not merely a question of cars. Cars are a trivial example, hot only an example. The real ill which the amendment seeks to prevent is the use of the whole Government propaganda machine in support of a "Yes" vote. The information officers available to the Government, able to prepare material and provide statistics, without necessarily publishing that material in any form which would conflict with what the Minister of State said, are very considerable in number. The impact and assistance which they could provide would be considerable, and the resources applied in that way would be substantial. That is what concerned the House of Lords, and we support the other place.
I am especially sorry that the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire has been suspended, because he raised a matter which I should like to have dealt with in his presence. It was a most extraordinary argument. He seemed to be saying that, because big business had more money and was able to campaign, the Government ought to spend public money to campaign on the other side.
If we are to make assessments of that kind, are we to say that every time a Government come to the conclusion that those who oppose them have more money than the Left wing to put forward a view—perfectly democratically—the balance should be redressed by a disproportionately large amount of money being thrown out of the public purse into the opposite scales? That is an extremely dangerous


argument to apply to anyone who has any belief in democracy at all.
I deal with the position of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) knows perfectly well that what he said was a distortion of my remarks. It was a total and disgraceful distortion, which gives us all notice of the sort of tactics that we can expect from the Scottish National Party in all future General Elections and referendums.
I said that there are two ways of approaching this. I am not committing my party—I do not see any reason why I should—as to which of the approaches should be followed on other legislation. Each is perfectly defensible. On the one hand, one can say that it is right, where an issue is being put to the country, that the two sides should be equally supplied with a certain amount of money out of public funds. The scales having at least been balanced financially, it is appropriate then that the Government should conduct their campaign in the normal way. The other way is to give money to neither side.
Yet another approach has been put forward by the Government in this Bill. They are saying that they will not give any money to outsiders and will not spend any money on leaflets, but on the other hand we reserve the right to spend public money on one side of the campaign alone. We say that that cannot be right. It should be against the law, and that is what the amendment, defective as it may be, seeks to do. Either one provides money to both sides, or one provides money to neither and does not spend Government money on one side of the argument rather than the other. That proposition is entirely consistent and logical, and we put it to the House.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) asked whether the Government were entitled to campaign for their policy. The answer, of course, is "Yes". But there is a difference between arguing about a Government's policy outside an election or referendum and campaigning during a referendum or election. The logic of what the hon. Gentleman argues is that even during a General Election it is right that the Government should spend taxpayers' money in favour of the

particular political party that is contesting the election.
That is not a principle that has ever been followed in this country. It has always been the case that it is possible for a Government in an election campaign to distinguish between the governmental functions that they are pursuing in the course of that campaign—the Queen's Government must carry on—and the actual issues that they are putting before the electorate in the campaign.
The referendum should be treated in the same way. The Government can certainly put forward their views, but if they are advocating one cause rather than another during the course of the campaign they should do so at their own expense and at the expense of their memmers and not at the expense of the public purse. That is the principle on which we stand, and that is why we support the Lords amendment.

Mr. John Smith: I do not object to having a very short time to reply because there is little to reply to. I cannot remember an occasion on which an Opposition have collected more egg on their faces than this, when the Conservative Party has chosen to support this Lords amendment. It was a very foolish decision. The Opposition did not follow this line of argument when they discussed the matter in this House, but they followed one of the more foolish amendments passed in another place.
It is the height of sauce for the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) to talk as he did, bearing in mind the practice of a previous Government in a previous referendum, well known to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). It was even worse for the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a rod for his own back, in view of the Leader of the Opposition's views on referendums and other matters. The Opposition have made a rod for their own back on the 40 per cent. issue and in some of the things they have said on this occasion. I hope that when the right hon. Lady has read the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks in Hansard she will be kind and allow him to take part in debates on the Wales Bill, because we enjoy his contributions.
The truth of the matter is that the most poverty-stricken argument has been put forward in this debate. There may be something in the criticism that the Government are being over-fair, but we would rather be over-fair than be accused of being in any way unfair.

It being midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 258.

[For Division No. 285 see c. 491.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at midnight.

Title

Lords amendment: no. 239, in line after ("Scotland") insert
("and in the procedure of Parliament").

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 262.

[For Division No. 286, see c. 497]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Brittan, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Millan, Mr. John Stradling Thomas, Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Millan.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to he communicated to the Lords.

WALES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

12.31 a.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move,
That the Order of 16th November 1977 be supplemented as follows:—

TABLE


Proceedings


Allotted day
Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


1st day
Nos. 1 to 24
7 p.m.



Nos. 25 to 30
9 p.m.



Nos. 31 to 51
10.30 p.m.



Nos. 52 to 66
midnight


2nd day
Nos. 67 to 77
6 p.m.



Nos. 17 to 104
7.30 p.m.



Nos. 105 to 166
10 p.m.



Nos. 167 to 198
midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

3. For the purpose of bringing any Proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th November, each part of those Proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message; and
(b) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords on any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The purpose of the motion is to provide a timetable for the consideration of amendments made in another place to the Wales Bill. I think that, in principle, the case for an allocation of time motion in respect to the Wales Bill is the same as the case made for such a motion on the Scotland Bill, which the House has already passed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does not the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, Central (Mr. McCartney) know that the House is still sitting? Mr. John Smith.

Mr. Smith: As hon. Members will recollect, the House passed the timetable motion on the Scotland Bill, and, indeed, it has completed the present consideration of the Lords amendments. I propose briefly to put the argument for the allocation of time motion in the same way as I put it on the Scotland Bill.
First, I submit that a timetable motion is necessary. I remind the House that we started off the Wales Bill right at the beginning of the Session, back in November 1977. We had one day on Second Reading, nine days on the Committee stage and two days on Report and Third Reading, all in terms of a timetable motion, to which the motion now before us is supplemental.
Now, almost at the end of the Session, we require to consider a number of amendments from the other place. No one will seriously argue that without this motion we could deal with them in a reasonable time. We know what may happen from what happened without a guillotine on the Scotland and Wales Bill. There is the added advantage that we are more likely to have a balanced discussion.

With the timetable on the Scotland Bill, we were able to discuss and decide upon a large number of matters which had been discussed in the Lords but not in the Commons.
Once again, this supplemental motion has knives coming down fairly frequently throughout the two days to permit discussion of similar matters. The structure of the reasonable time allocated will allow us to discuss matters which have not been discussed in this House.
The Wales Bill is important and in some ways complicated, but on balance it is probably less complicated and extensive than the Scotland Bill—certainly in terms of Lords amendments—so it is reasonable to allocate two days.
The Government intend to recommend that the House should accept, on a quick calculation, 83 of the 198 amendments made in the other place. That leaves a fairly large number to discuss, but I believe that we shall have satisfactory debates, as we did on the Scotland Bill. This will enable us to give the fairest consideration to the amendments and to take decisions on a reasonable time scale.

12.36 a.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I disagree totally with the idea of moving such a motion as this in the middle of the night. It is unnecessary and unreasonable. It may not be relevant that it has not happened before, but it is certainly unnecessary. It amounts to an insult to this House and, in a way, an insult to Wales.
Surprisingly the Lord President, in his role as Lord High Executioner, is not prepared to do the dirty work himself. One of his Ministers has to release the blades while he sits by and enjoys the spectacle in whatever way he likes. That is not a very honourable procedure in the circumstances: indeed, it is rather ignominious. It is surprising too that, as I understand it, the Lord President will be taking no part at all in the debates on these constitutional Bills.
The right hon. Gentleman's sole interest is to get the Bills through at any price, no matter what happens on the way, no matter how many casualties there may be or what long-term damage may be


done. He admitted as much at a rally in Wales recently:
We shall look at them"—
the Lords amendments—
with the same kind of care that would have been given to proposals for reforming the Band of Hope made by the Brewers' Society.
Very funny. That just shows with what contempt the right hon. Gentleman is treating the amendments. It implies that he thinks he knows best and that everyone else is wrong.
We think that it is wrong to treat the Wales Bill as a second-class Bill, almost as the poor sister of the Scotland Bill. The allocation of time should be at least as much as was given to that Bill, which itself was inadequate. There is no justification for Wales faring even worse, with only two days instead of three. I agree that it is a different method of devolution, but in our view it requires just as much debate.
We might contrast the time allocated to the two Bills. In Committee and on Report in the Commons, the Scotland Bill received 17 days and the Wales Bill received only 11 days. In Committee and on Report in the Lords, the Scotland Bill received 18 days and the Wales Bill eight days. For consideration of Lords amendments, the Scotland Bill has had three days and the Wales Bill is to have two.

Mr. Thomas Swain: rose—

Mr. Pym: I want to develop my argument, and then I shall give way. The hon. Gentleman has only his right hon. Friends to complain about for the circumstances of this debate.
On the Scotland Bill there were 80 amendments that the Government decided not to accept, of which 48 were debated and 32 were not debated at all. They decided to accept 159 of the Lords amendments, but only six of those were debated. That is the experience that we have had in the three days on the Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill, and Wales will be provided with even fewer days.

Mr. Swain: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his rather belated interest in Wales, tell the House why it was that during the Committee stage, Report and Third Reading of the Local Government Bill he and his colleagues, who were on

the Government Benches at the time, refused to accept an amendment put down by myself and other hon. Members providing for separate Bills for Wales and for England? The right hon. Member's interest in Wales is rather belated, and it is only a political point that he is making.

Mr. Pym: I think that my interest in Wales predates any interest of the hon. Member's. At any rate, on this occasion between us all we managed to persuade the Government to divide the Scotland and Wales Bill into two, so we have managed to achieve some advance.
In some ways the Wales Bill is more complex than the Scotland Bill. It certainly deserves as much debate, and I think that the way in which the Government have sought to curtail and to compress it is causing the House to be unable to fulfil its responsibility to the people of Wales and unable to fulfil its proper constitutional role.
The Leader of the House is abusing his position as Leader of the House, not because he is introducing a timetable motion but because that motion is demonstrably and unnecessarily inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman is using the Minister of State to bring down the knives on the Bill in such a way that our legislative function is made a mockery. I thought that hon. Members wanted an orderly and adequate debate, not no debate or a mockery of a debate. I do not believe that on the basis of this motion that is possible on the Lords amendments to the Wales Bill.
The facts of the matter are these. During the Bill's passage in the Commons previously, out of 84 clauses only 15 were discussed and out of 12 schedules only two were discussed. Vast tracts of the Bill were unexamined, unscrutinised and unconsidered by the House. In the Lords, 198 amendments were passed, covering between them over 20 substantial areas. Of these areas, only three were debated in the House during the previous stages of the Bill; the other 17 were never mentioned. If each of these areas was discussed for only one and a half hours, that would mean 30 hours of debate. Is that too much to ask? Is four days for Wales too much? Hon. Members on the Government Benches say that it is too long. Why is it too long? It is not too long for a major Bill which, if ever it


were to be put into operation, would have a far-reaching effect on the people of Wales, and, for that matter, on the people of the United Kingdom.
I do not think that I am overstating the case. I think that Wales deserves that modest allocation of time, and that is all that I am asking for. As it is, the motion provides for only two days—only twice as long, I recall, as the amount of time permitted by the Government for Lords amendments to the Rent (Agriculture) Bill—quite a significant Bill but certainly not one that could be considered to be a major constitutional Bill. Do you remember what happened to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It was found to be defective. It was found to have a mistake in it, and the Government had to bring in an amending Bill in order to correct that mistake, because we hurried our legislative work too much. It matters far more on this Bill to avoid mistakes, and so I say that two days is not enough for Wales.
Finally, of the 198 amendments a large proportion are Government amendments, and I think they said that they would accept some others, amounting to about 100 altogether. I think that is right. The right hon. Gentleman said 83, but from the list that he put in the "No" Lobby it seemed to me that it was more than that. There is no need to argue about that, but the fact that that has happened surely provides evidence of defective drafting or second thoughts on the part of the Government. The Lords have done their best to fulfil their proper revising function after our own failure adequately to scrutinise the Bill. The Lords have passed these amendments to try to make the Bill less bad.
The Lord President had the gall to say this when opening the launching rally:
There is something incongruous in members of the House of Lords discussing how democracy should be denied to the people of Wales.
There is something even more incongruous in the right hon. Gentleman, by remote control, denying this House the time it should have to work for the benefit of the people of Wales. The right hon. Gentleman showed that he will stick at nothing to impose his partisan will, and he is not prepared to take any notice of any other person, any minorities or any other groups.
I urge the House not to agree to the motion. Let us have another one, a better one and a fairer one that will provide adequate time to discuss this important matter. If that is done, some integrity might be restored to the parliamentary process in relation to this monstrously ill-conceived Bill.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: I believe that it is the duty of those of us who believe in this way and who are speaking to Wales tonight, apart from those of us who are speaking to our colleagues who represent English constituencies and who perhaps are not so fully aware of what Wales is thinking about the issues, to point out that this is a deliberate act of contempt of the people of Wales by a group of people who are fearful that full debate of all the implications would thwart their attempts to foist a bureaucratic Assembly upon the Principality.
It is no wonder that the Government want a guillotine. The hope of the executioners is that no debates will take place which will catch the further attention of Wales. They want Wales to walk blindfold into the traps now being set. The hope by this ruse is that Wales will not know that Assemblymen will be able to have whatever salary and expenses they themselves decide and will not know that nationalist MPs who wish to become Members both of the Assembly and of this House will be able to augment their salaries in an unprecedented way. It will mean, further, that these decisions will be taken inside the Assembly behind closed doors. It means that Assemblymen will be able to deal with their own affairs, including their salaries, without the publication of any proper minutes. It will mean, in short, that Assemblymen will be able to exclude the public in a way that this House cannot.
It will follow, if these amendments are not properly discussed, that an Assembly will come into existence which will have absolute privilege, which will be a school for scandal and where those who wish to protect the interests that have been created will be able to say what they wish, how they wish, in whatever manner, without any of the traditional checks which prevail in an Assembly of this kind. All these matters have been scrutinised in the other place, where amendments were introduced directed to


ensuring that this House should have surveillance over the salaries that otherwise Assemblymen can create at whim.
The amendments which have been made in another place have made it clear that there should be inhibitions upon the manner in which the Assemblymen talk, since they will not have either the tradition or understanding which this House has carefully built up behind its protection of absolute privilege, ensuring that individuals outside do not suffer. There are those who may mock at the work done in the other part of our legislature. It is our legislature. If they do not want it, let them take action to abolish it. There is a case to be made for the abolition of the Lords, but as long as it is there and doing its function it does not become this Chamber to treat it with contempt when it is doing a workmanlike job which is denied to this House.
It demeans this House if we do not at least pay regard to what has been careful thinking about the minutiae of the Bill which was never examined at all in this Chamber. The fact is that because of their activities the Lords have inserted amendments which enable individuals to challenge possible abuses of power, which could take place, on the part of the Assembly. These amendments are necessary for the protection of the individual in Wales. I believe that the majority of the people there are looking with suspicion at the creation of this bureaucratic Assembly.
All these amendments will be buried unrecorded in this guillotine if it is passed. I say to my hon. Friends that we believe that the people of Wales, who are certainly deeply divided inside our movement as to the merits or demerits of this proposal, at least have the right to expect that they know all the arguments. They at least have the right to know that the Bill upon which they will be asked to make a decision has been properly scrutinised. All of us, including the Leader of the House, know full well that the debates have not taken place, that the Bill has not been examined and that large areas of it will be presented to the people of Wales if this guillotine is passed, without any scrutiny having been made.

Mr. Dan Jones: Why not?

Mr. Abse: "Why not?" comes the cry from the fanatics who are supporting the

Bill. If hon. Members believe that they can quench by a Bill of this kind the traditional internationalism of the Labour Party of Wales, they are making a great mistake. If they believe that by a guillotine of this character they can cut down a Labour movement that has vision and understanding of its links, certainly with the movement inside England and Scotland, I say to those hon. Members that they are making a grave mistake.
The backlash against this Bill is coming from those who stand four-square behind the long tradition that exists in Wales of ensuring that there is a unity of working people throughout Britain. They know full well that what is being presented to them is something which is cutting them off from the mainstream of the British Labour movement and is creating the conditions in which there could be a permanent Conservative majority in this country. One can examine the amendments and see how inevitable it will be that there will follow, if ever there is a Conservative Government, a wholesale reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing Wales, as undoubtedly will take place in Scotland.
Those who cheer this evening and who believe that they are being loyal to the Government by going through the Lobby to support a guillotine of this kind are in my opinion estranging themselves entirely from the dynamic that has inspired our Welsh Labour movement—a dynamic that is certainly not expressed in this miserable, shrivelled-up Bill which would reduce Wales to a parish council and which would diminish the influence of Wales in Westminster. I believe it to be a major tragedy that at this hour of night—when there is clearly a need not merely to make the didactic statements that I am making but to justify them by being able to go through the Bill in detail and show to the House how disastrous the Bill is—a Bill of this kind is being imposed upon Wales.
But Wales has rumbled to what is taking place, and I am confident that, happily, there will be enough of us who will remain loyal to the views expressed by people such as Nye Bevan, and loyal to those who always understood that the worst damage that could be done to a Welsh Labour movement was to cut off its arteries from the main bloodstream of the British Labour movement.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the morning in this very important debate. Being a staunch devolutionist, one of my ambitions during my political career has been to see a Welsh Parliament being set up in Cardiff, and I hope that the Members elected to that Assembly will be elected through a system of proportional representation.
The Bill is perhaps not acceptable to the majority of us. I wonder how many of the hon. Members on each side of the House who have spoken against the guillotine tonight, and against the Bill, are in favour of the principle of devolving power to the people of Wales. That is what is important, in my view—the principle of devolving power to the people.
My colleagues and I will vote this morning for the guillotine, or timetable motion. We have been told that 198 amendments have come from the other place. I wonder how many of the noble Lords in the other Chamber had the interests of Wales at heart. They have used delaying tactics because they are not in favour of devolving power to the people of Wales.
In my view, the Wales Bill should be on the statute book in this Session. We have waited long enough for this to happen. During the past two years right hon. and hon. Members have talked at length about devolution, and many hon. Members who were in this Chamber before us have talked about it at length during the past 50 years. But from what is said by many opponents of devolution one would think that the subject was an entirely new one, and that more time must be set aside over the next few years to discuss its implications.
We have to ask ourselves how much longer the people of Wales have to wait for devolution. Is it to be three weeks, three months, 30 years or 300 years? I think that the time is now opportune. It has been the cornerstone of Liberal policies for the last 100 years.
I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who has opposed devolution during his time in the House of Commons. But perhaps at this stage it would be better for some hon. Members to hear

what a great statesman of this country said at the turn of the century. I quote from Gladstone, when he spoke on 26th November 1879. He commented:
The imperial Parliament must be supreme in the three Kingdoms.
But he went on:
Subject to that limitation, if we can make arrangements under which Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and portions of England, can deal with questions of local and special interest to themselves more efficiently than Parliament now can, that, I say, will be the attainment of a great national good.
The theme has been repeated again and again over the century, and today the Liberal Party upholds those principles.
Let us remind ourselves once again of what the late David Lloyd George said in February 1890. He was a statesman, and he said when seconding a resolution favouring self-government for Wales:
There is a momentous time coming. The dark continent of wrong is being explored and there is a missionary spirit abroad for its reclamation to the realm of right … That is why I feel so sanguine that were self-government granted to Wales she would be a model to the nationalities of the earth of a people who have driven oppression from their hillsides, and initiated the glorious reign of freedom, justice and truth.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have never understood the aspirations of the Welsh people. We are proud of our culture. We are proud of our language. We are proud of our traditions. We do not say that we are any better than the English, the Scots or the Irish, but we are different. If we do not look after our own interests, who will? We must safeguard our identity.
I beg right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have the interests of Wales at heart to support us. I ask them not to deny us in Wales the right to govern ourselves.
I am determined that the opportunity will not be lost this time. We must work together for the establishment of the Welsh Assembly.

1.3 a.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: The argument of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) seemed to be that we must have the Bill as quickly as possible, whether it is good or bad, and whether or not it has been worked out and argued properly. He made no remarks to convince anyone that he had any view about the efficacy of this proposed guillotine.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The principle.

Sir R. Gower: We are not discussing the principle of devolution. We are discussing whether the guillotine is a proper instrument for use at this stage of our discussions on this Bill.
The Minister of State said that a guillotine would ensure a more balanced discussion of Lords amendments. I cannot believe that he really takes that view. He may have said it, but he did not appear very convinced by it. He implied that our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee constituted a balanced examination of the Bill. It was a mockery of an examination.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Whose fault was that?

Sir R. Gower: It was the very nature of the timetable which was set which resulted in very important parts of the Bill not being considered at all. It was not the fault of those who constituted the Committee that certain parts of the Bill could not be reached at the right stages on different days.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): If the hon. Member is making the case that this House was denied sufficient time to discuss the Bill, can he honestly explain why it took this House six hours to debate Clause 1 when I moved in 35 seconds that the Government would not be proceeding with it?

Sir R. Gower: Because the part of the Bill that the Government suddenly decided to withdraw embodied a vital principle which was also reflected in other parts of the legislation. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that there were whole sections if the Bill which, even had the Committee galloped through its discussions, could not have been reached. As the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) so correctly pointed out, the other place did the work that we neglected or were unable to do.

Mr. Alec Jones: Did not want to do.

Sir R. Gower: The other House did the work which this House, by the very nature of the timetable, was unable to do. The other place has given us a second opportunity to look at sections of the Bill that we have not yet discussed.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: Does the hon. Member consider that the other place adequately dealt with these sections of the Bill, and will he tell us how long it took to do it?

Sir R. Gower: The important point is that by so doing the other place gave us a second chance. Now the stage manager of this Assembly is prepared to throw that chance away. It is a long time since the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) appeared as a champion of many things associated with freedom; it is only a dim memory in the minds of some of us. These days he seems to delight in adopting ideas that curtail discussion. I am amazed that he is not glad that we now have an opportunity to discuss such an important clause as that which deals with the local authorities in the Principality. That was one of the most important sections of the Bill. It could not be discussed before, and the Lords have given us the opportunity to look at it again.
I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about the timetable, even at this late stage. The discussion in this House was very poor. It was not worthy of the House of Commons. We left for the Lords a Bill that had hardly been touched. At least the other place, with all its handicaps, has done a great deal to illuminate parts of the Bill which require discussion. This House should grasp eagerly the opportunity and discuss the parts of the Bill which need very close scrutiny.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: We have heard again from the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) the speech that we have heard from him before. In discussing the guillotine he seems again to be confused by the nature of this Bill. He is supporting either federalism, which is the line his party currently promotes, or Home Rule, which his party used to promote. But he cannot bring those two to terms with the devolution which is contained in this Bill. We are talking about three different things. The hon. Member can opt for one of them, but he cannot come to terms with all three.
We are faced with an abbreviated guillotine on a runt of a Bill. The only reason why this Bill exists is in order to legitimise the panic that the Government


showed to the Scottish National Party. The whole business has been instituted, both in the Scotland and Wales Bill and in the split Bills, in order to give a veneer of respectability and a general commitment to the principle of devolution that would have been impossible to gain had they not given in to nationalist sentiment from only one part of the United Kingdom.
If we need any illustration of that we have only to look at the fact that at nine minutes past one in the morning we are in the course of a one-hour debate on a guillotine that is substantially shorter than the one proposed for the Scotland Bill. During the progress of these Bills through the House, the Wales Bill has had considerably less attention than the Scotland Bill. In every judgment at every stage, in every part of consideration, and in every proposal made allegedly to meet the thirst for self-government for the people of Scotland and Wales, there has been a complete difference in attitude by the Government towards Scotland and Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, for a person of his talents—I mean that sincerely, as Hughie Green might say—has made no attempt to justify the imposition of a guillotine other than to adopt the classic argument advanced by Governments of all political complexions. Having used the procedures of the House to cramp debate, they then accuse those of opposing views, who face a brickwall in the curtailment of time, of wasting time or of inadequately using or abusing the time allocated. It is the oldest trick in the Government's book.
This suggests to me that time is not the great friend of opposition to any measure but the great friend of Governments in the way in which they can be tortured and moulded as a means of expediting business, even at the loss of adequate democratic consideration—consideration that should take place, especially on constitutional measures of this nature.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went even further and talked of the possibility of balanced discussion being the greater because of the timetable motion. Had George Orwell sought to produce a phrase to describe the totalitarian attitude of Government towards

guillotine motions, he could not have come up with a better one than the suggestion of the possibility of balanced discussion during a guillotine that will last for mere flickers of the eye in the next two days when we attempt to consider most profound matters. My right hon. Friend talks of balanced discussion when we are being allowed only an hour-and-a-half's discussion on the subject of PR—and that includes the possibility of considering all the other matters handed down to us by their Lordships.

Mr. Roderick: We have had one opportunity.

Mr. Kinnock: My hon. Friend says that we have had one opportunity. We have had many opportunities, but is it not in the nature of this House repeatedly to given attention to matters and, by repetition, to seek to expose inadequacies.
The fact that PR might have been discussed on the Scotland Bill, or briefly discussed in Committee on the Wales Bill, is not sufficient justification for giving virtually no time at all for it to be discussed as a later stage. This House, notwithstanding the guillotines imposed by successive Governments, will discuss the whole question of changing the method of voting and representation in this country for as long as it likes and as often as it likes.
Is it justified in terms of balanced discussion that we give no more than an hour-and-a-half, and indeed considerably less, to clause 12—introduced by the Government not in the Scotland and Wales Bill, but drafted into the Wales Bill to permit the proposed Welsh Assembly to consider the possibility of local government reform?
We have been at some length into the ridiculous and wasteful duplication of such an exercise since we are talking of an executive Assembly in any case, and those proposals will have to return to this House for rejection, acceptance or amendment. But the fact remains that this matter was of such paramount importance to the Government that it has been used as a major justification for introducing the Assembly by the Leader of the House, who is fond of going around Wales saying that if we had had an Assembly we would never have had the dreaded Tory local government reform. Clause 12, therefore, is a main


justification by the Government for introducing this Bill in the first place.
How long have we got to discuss the Bill now? Seconds. We certainly did not have adequate time to discuss it in Committee or on Report. So in that sense I suppose that we have to be grateful to the noble gentlemen along the corridor. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I share an opinion about the other place.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Will my hon. Friend take into account that if the House of Lords that he is commending so strongly for its vigilance had only shown a little of that vigilance when the local government reform Bill was going through we would never have had the horror of the present local government reform forced on the people of Wales? The Lords did not exercise their restraint then; they have done it a bit belatedly now.

Mr. Kinnock: I understand what my right hon. Friend is saying. He is saying that we could have stopped local government reform if we had had a Welsh Assembly, or we could have stopped it if the gentlemen along the corridor had exercised their vigilance. With that latter remark, I entirely agree, because they are a bunch of Tories down there; the House of Lords is entirely dominated by Tories supporting Tory Governments and bent upon the confusion of Labour Governments. There is nothing that my right hon. Friend can tell me, and no terms in which he can put it too strongly, which would make me agree more with him about his general assessment of the House of Lords.
But the fact remains that, whilst we have spent considerable time in the past two years proposing and discussing legislation for which there is only limited support in Scotland and minute support in Wales, we could have been earnestly concerning ourselves with the obliteration of that place along the corridor. Indeed, that is a proposition that might have commended itself even more strongly than devolution to my right hon. Friend, a friend of democracy. But that has not been the proposition at all, so I do not offer my remarks about this guillotine in commendation of the House along the corridor—far from it. I do so simply

because, as the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, it gives us an opportunity to bite this apple once again.
It is very difficult to accept criticism of the House of Lords from the Leader of the House because he, like all his predecessors, has an obligation to get the Government's business through the House of Commons. What does he do? Like all his predecessors, he introduces legislation in the House of Lords in order to abbreviate matters; he uses the House of Lords as a scrutinising Chamber, as the revising Chamber. I am not criticising him or his predecessors for that, for as long as that place exists, unelected, illegitimate as it may be in any democratic terms, Governments are forced to use it.
I will make an agreement with my right hon. Friend. As long as he does not take my remarks as being commendation of the House of Lords, I will not pay any more attention to the fact that he, like all other members of the Government, and certainly all previous Leaders of the House, is obliged to use such means in this most inadequate Parliament in order to relieve the House of Commons of some of the work so as to get the Government's business done.
But we still have before us a guillotine which, at the very outside, even if we wear track suits and spiked shoes in order to speed our way through the Division Lobbies, will leave us with an absolute maximum of 14 hours of possibility of debate on 183 amendments, involving important decisions which have not been previously considered by this House and which are of major interest to the people of Wales. It is the last opportunity for the rehearsal of these arguments in informed debate before we get to the referendum campaign, which we wrung so tortuously out of the Government. It is not an adequate means of scrutiny; it is not an adequate means of discussion. It is certainly not one that I can support.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I have been told that I have two minutes in which to make my speech. In that short time, I should like to point out that there is a wind of change blowing through Europe. Stateless nations and historic regions are showing a new vitality. On Monday we read in the press that the Basque country now has its own elected


assembly and the Basque people are negotiating with the Spanish Government to extend the considerable powers proposed for that assembly. Swift movement is also to be found in Catalonia. In many parts of Europe, we find similar moves to those that are taking place in these countries of Britain. This spirit of change affects us, too.
We speak in the context of a country which is one of the oldest nations of Europe and it is disgraceful that the Welsh people have no control over any aspect of their life, as a people. The Bill at least proposes a beginning to give the Welsh people some control over their own life. There has been talk of statutory instruments, but since March 1974 a total of 390 SIs have been presented by the Welsh Office and only 29 have been scrutinised by the House. We need a body in Wales even to do that job.
It has been said that devolution will be too costly for us to afford. It will cost the people of Britain ½p per week per person. That is the total cost of this exercise in democracy. It is an addition to democracy in Wales and we welcome it. We do not share the disgraceful sentiments of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who has slandered his own nation tonight. He should withdraw those words. We believe that the Welsh people can look after their own affairs well and we want to see them given the chance. That chance can be started by passing the motion to give the Government the opportunity of getting the Bill through—an opportunity which they would not have if there were no timetable motion. We fully support the motion.

1.22 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Both hon. Members who spoke for minority parties in support of the motion failed to refer to the merits or otherwise of the guillotine and discussed only the principles of the Bill—which this debate is not about. The only two Labour Members who have spoken have criticised the guillotine, and that has been the pattern of all our debates on the Bill: there has been a lack of support from the Government's own Benches.
We are perhaps in a unique situation in considering this guillotine because we do not have to compare it with guillotines

on other Bills of long ago which may not be fair comparisons. Instead, we can compare it with the adequacy of the time allowed for Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill. There were three days allotted for the 239 amendments to that Bill. We have two days to consider 198 amendments
When the Minister put the Scotland Bill guillotine motion to the House, he forecast that the time would prove reasonable and tonight he said that it was satisfactory. Of the 80 Lords amendments not accepted by the House, 32 have not been debated before being returned to the Lords because there was no time to debate them. Of the 159 amendments accepted, only six were referred to in our debates. Those facts clearly establish that the time was inadequate and another place may consider that it will be justified in returning at least some of those amendments on those grounds alone. Our warnings proved right and the Minister's complacent forecasts proved wrong.
The time available for the Wales Bill is even shorter, and the Government intend to reject more Lords amendments on this Bill than they did on the Scotland Bill—115 against 80. We ought to have more time and not less for debate. The fact that 159 amendments to the Scotland Bill and 83 to this Bill are to be accepted by the Government justifies the work of another place and shows how totally unreasonable were the Lord President's insulting comments at the meeting referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym).
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said it was all a question of principle, but the Bill will have profound practical effects for the Welsh people and we should be considering not just the principle but whether the particular set of proposals are sensible and will work. The Lords have tidied up the Bill and given us the chance to re-examine some of the 68 clauses and 10 schedules that we were denied the opportunity to debate because of the operation of the guillotine. The truth is that the Government are now seeking to mislead the people of Wales. They are seeking to put to the people in a referendum an Act that the people will believe has been adequately debated and examined by Parliament, and that will be wrong. As a result of the guillotine they will have been defrauded.

Mr. Michael English: rose—

Mr. Edwards: In the course of the campaign the Bill's supporters will say that Parliament is satisfied that it will work, but it will not. The inconsistencies, the illogicalities and the unresolved problems remain.
The hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was right when he said that a prime objective of the guillotine is to curtail public exposure of the Bill before the referendum. Faced with the uncomfortable fact that virtually all the speeches made during the passage of the Bill have been against it, the Government are now seeking to silence the debate and to curtail the Bill's exposure. By holding the discussion in the middle of the night they are seeking to ensure that their actions will not be reported to the Welsh people in the Welsh press. The Government's concept of democracy is to curtail discussion and to keep the people in the dark. That is the principle followed by the Lord President.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): indicated dissent.

Mr. Edwards: That is the truth, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.
Faced with a constitutional measure of major importance that the House recognised from the outset would affect the unity of the Kingdom so that it refused to accept the first clause and the Government had to drop it, it is wrong that we should be silenced. It is wrong that our debates should be curtailed. I urge the House to reject this contemptible measure.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) was in a state of great excitement. He made little reference to the detail of the timetable motion and the way in which we discussed these maters when they were before the House under an earlier timetable motion.
A fact that the House must bear in mind is that nine days were allocated under timetable motion. The length of most of the debates on various topics was decided by the Opposition. However, during nine days they covered only a small part of the ground that another place covered in five days without a guillotine. The conclusion that must be

drawn is that the Oposition were not concerned to see the maximum number of issues debated in this place.
It will not do for my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) or the hon. Member for Pembroke to suggest that the Government are trying to stifle debate. That cannot be said when, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State observed, we wasted six hours on clause 1 when the Government had indicated at the beginning of the debate that the clause would be withdrawn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) took us a stage further when he commented on the Government's desire to get the Bill through Parliament. That is a legitimate desire because we started the Bill in the first week of the Session and we are now almost at the end of the Session. He said that there was panic on the part of the Government, with an exercise concerned only to maintain a veneer of respectability. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that we are trying to give a veneer of respectability to his own election commitment. In his manifesto he said:
We shall meet the genuine demands for new democratic developments with an elected Welsh Assembly.
This is precisely what we are seeking to do in proposing the Bill. A necessary part of that process is the timetable motion that we are putting before the House. My hon. Friend should be a little more generous towards a Government who are so accommodating to the promise that he made to his electors.

Mr. Kinnock: What about the promises that my right hon. Friend made?

Mr. Smith: I made a similar commitment n my election manifesto and I have been supporting the proposal in the House.
We saw what happened with the Scotland and Wales Bill when there was no guillotine motion. If we had continued with that Bill it would have been about the year 1990 before we had concluded discussion. As every hon. Member knows, it was clear that there was no chance of the Wales Bill or the Scotland Bill completing their stages through Parliament without a timetable motion. If we did not have the timetable motion now, there is no reason to suppose that the remaining


stages of the Bill would be completed in this Session. The Opposition might oppose the motion because they do not want the Bill to pass. But they should not cloak their opposition to the Bill in the guise of pretending that it is unreasonable to have a timetable motion.
We know that the Opposition are opposed to the Bill and that that is why they are opposed to the timetable motion. I do not object to that. It is their privilege. But they must not cloak their objection to the Bill by saying that there is something unreasonable about the timetable motion. There is nothing unreasonable in the motion. It is perfectly reasonable. When the House, in almost the last week of the Session, is dealing with Lords amendments to a Bill which began in almost the first week of the Session, it is reasonable.

It being one hour after the commence-

Table


Allotted day
Proceedings Lords Amendments
Time for conclusion


1st day
Nos. 1 to 24
7 p.m.



Nos. 25 to 30
9 p.m.



Nos. 31 to 51
10.30 p.m.



Nos. 52 to 66
midnight


2nd day
 Nos. 67 to 77
6 p.m.



Nos. 78 to 104
7.30 p.m.



Nos. 105 to 166
10 p.m.



Nos. 167 to 198
midnight

2. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings for two hours after Ten o'clock.

3. For the purpose of bringing any Proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question which has been already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendments, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

ment of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November], to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 260.

[See Division 287]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Order of 16th November 1977 be supplemented as follows—

Lords Amendments

1. The Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 16th November, each part of those Proceedings shall, it not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table set out below.

(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

4. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the Proceedings.

5.—(1) For the purpose of bringing those Proceedings to a conclusion Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister


of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(a) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message; and
(b) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords on any of their Proposals, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Proposal.

Supplemental

6.—(1) In this paragraph 'the Proceedings' means Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion moved by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the Proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the Proceedings were interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

ELTON COLLECTION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Dean.]

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Sir Arthur Elton died at the beginning of 1973. He was associated with many things but in particular his memory will be associated with having produced a striking collection relating to industrial and technical history. When he died, he left behind at Clevedon Court a collection described as the most striking of its kind in the world, and it certainly will not be repeatable in this country.
The Elton collection then passed to the Treasury in lieu of death duties and is currently in the hands of the Minister responsible for the arts, where I think it is remaining for the time being. In December 1976, applications were invited for the housing of the collection and I believe that four museums have applied, including Ironbridge in Shropshire and the North-Western Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester.
The Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries considered the matter and on Friday the Secretary of State announced in a Written Answer the decision to go to Ironbridge. The process of decision by the commission is an enclosed one. It is not open to public scrutiny, no details of evidence or the reasons for the decision have been given, and there is no appeal. It is known that the Earl of Plymouth was at some time both a member of the working party and a member of the Ironbridge Trust. There is no malice in that, but it is not proper that that should be the case. The work of the commission should be open to more scrutiny.
I am not attacking the Minister for this fact, because it is not directly his responsibility, but it is reprehensible that the announcement was made on Friday in answer to a Question which was put down on Thursday, the day after it was known that this Adjournment debate had been fixed. It seems clear that the announcement was an attempt to face this House with a fait accompli and to show the people in Manchester that their arguments were of no interest at this stage.
But there is still time to reconsider. The decision is not an urgent one, and I recommend that wisdom does more for a Minister's reputation than pride.
In challenging the noble Lord's decision and asking for its reconsideration, I am not merely putting over a parochial point. I am not pitting the enthusiasm of one director of a museum against that of another director of a museum. The involvement of the whole Manchester community in this decision is widespread and its importance certainly lies in the collection itself and the love and respect we have for what it contains. Also, it represents something very important for us, which is that it implies an attitude of the Government towards the development of museum culture outside London.
The claim of the North-Western Museum, centred as it is in Manchester, is on the face of it irresistible. Historically, Manchester was the centre of the Industrial Revolution. The canals spring from the Duke of Bridgwater's canal in Manchester. The railways here opened with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which is about to celebrate its 150th anniversary. The city and the towns around it have produced developments in textiles, in steam, in aeronautics, in engineering and technology of all kinds. Its range of technology is far wider than the iron technology which is based on Ironbridge and Coalbrookdale. So, too, of course is the Elton collection. A list has been compiled of no fewer than 15 industries and technologies where the contents of the collection will be directly relevant to pioneering work done in the north-west.
Sir Arthur Elton himself may at one time have thought that Manchester was the appropriate home. I have a letter from a constituent who knew him personally recalling that much of the collection was made while Sir Arthur was at Metro-Cicks and that he had the idea then of donating it to Manchester. I cannot confirm this from any other source, but it is no accident tint the Manchester city art gallery has been the only one that was thought fit to display the collection, which it did as long ago as 1968.
But it is not only the appropriateness of Manchester and the north-west that I would plead tonight; it is something

much more important. The decision as it was recorded on Friday does less than proper honour and respect to the collection. Whatever the merits of Ironbridge—and I am not decrying Ironbridge in any way—that museum is not part of the web of academic study as is the North-Western Museum. Manchester's museum is partly financed by UMIST—the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology—a university of international repute. The books of the Elton collection would enrich its scholars, and its scholars would enrich the collection.
That university is only one of two, I believe, which has a department of the history of science and technology, and its professor is one of the governors of the museum. The Whitworth Art Gallery and the City Art Gallery both contain, nearby, considerable expertise, which has already been drawn upon in planning for the use of the collection, and it is particularly important, as part of the collection contains prints and drawings.
In short, what I am saying is that if the collection came to Manchester it would be in the heart of a strong, sensitive, academic and artistic community, which would help to display it as it deserves. Ironbridge offers no comparable value. Why, then, has the Minister come to what seems to us to be a perverse judgment? In a letter to me he said:
I believe the deciding factor was accommodation; Ironbridge have a building ready and waiting, whereas the Manchester long-term accommodation is still at the planning stage.
Such a conclusion is totally misleading and is very short-sighted. Lady Elton's concern—and I think the concern of most scholars—is that the collection should be kept intact and whole. Neil Cossons, the director of Ironbridge, was reported in the Telegraph as saying:
As the collection is too big to be shown all at once we would concentrate on exhibitions of fine quality in respect of the Industrial Revolution.
That is a very limited commitment on the part of the Ironbridge.
What of Manchester? The truth is that a purpose-built gallery has been designed in detail as an extension to the present museum. The necessary funds are already allocated from the Greater Manchester Council and from local sources, and the building could commence immediately a decision was made.


It has been designed with expert consideration of the specific requirements of the collection, and the standing commission has known this since January 1977, so, had it wished, the extension could have been built by now. The council has also voted funds for the special care and display of the collection.
The collection has, I understand, been crated up for two years, and if the Minister were concerned, suddenly, with a rush of urgency, I can tell him that the city council has stepped in and has provided facilities for its immediate housing pending the building of the extension. As I understand it—I have no reason to doubt it—that building is very well equipped for the purpose. It is secure, it is new, it has adequate facilities for the staff and the public, and it even has adjacent lecture and library facilities, so that if it wanted to come immediately that could be arranged. I think, therefore, that the Minister has been misled in this respect.
The Minister's letter is short-sighted and depressing. I want to press this home on the Minister, because I think that it is of great importance: if, when he is talking about long-term planning, he is referring to our hope of creating a larger museum of science and industry and technology, he is right. That is not complete. We are hoping that there will be a museum of national standard outside London—I shall come back to that point—and I hope that he will not belittle our efforts.
There are two possibilities. The university long ago offered a site free for the land within the university precinct and the money required is for the building. The relevant council committee has just approved—it has yet to go to the council—an alternative scheme costing £2½ million for the development of the old Liverpool Road site, which is an old railway station with an adjacent warehouse. Both the latter buildings are of historic importance which would be marvellous for housing the museum and for working locomotives next door. That is a long-term prospect. It is additional to, not instead of, the requirements for currently housing the Elton collection.
I hope that the Minister will not discourage such ideals. The Wright report

on provincial museums urged the establishment of centres of excellence which will require national as well as local funding. The creation of a museum of science, industry and technology of international status in the provinces is just such a centre of excellence. It should be built where it is most appropriate both historically and academically and where there is local support. It should be sited where there is a core already existing. The Elton collection would broaden the wide range of technology already housed at the North-Western Museum. The collection and the existing collection together would multiply the value of each.
If there is to be a proper museum outside London, the Elton collection must go there. That is what the alternative centre outside London will be about. Ironbridge cannot fulfil tht role and the decision which has been taken means that the opportunity is being forgone.
The Minister is a courteous gentleman, and I know his affiliation to the northwest. I ask him, therefore, not to allow his brief to fail to answer four specific questions which I will now put to him. First, will he undertake to postpone a final decision until the recommendation has had proper time for public discussion? I made the point earlier that the standing commission's work has been done behind closed doors. Secondly, and in particular, will the Minister wait until the publication and discussion of the report of the standing commission's working party on the national plan for the museums so that we can see how this proposal fits into the overall plans? Thirdly, will he in any case publish in full, and specific detail his reasons for choosing Ironbridge and for not choosing the other contenders? Finally, will he publish the conditions which Ironbridge has undertaken to meet and say what process would occur if the decision should need to be reviewed later?
I conclude with the point I made at the beginning. The decision bodes ill for the Government's attitude towards the development of museums outside London. It means that a great opportunity is being lost. It means that the Minister has preempted the decision about the national plan for museums. I think it means that the Minister has not really thought the matter through. I urge him to reconsider it.

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Sir Arthur Elton was my constituent and Lady Elton still lives in my constituency at the family home at Clevedon.
Sir Arthur was a great man in many ways, and I think he would feel greatly complimented by the fact that the House is giving its time to discussing his important collection. It is right and proper that it should be doing so. I spoke briefly last night with Lady Elton. I can summarise her views in a very few sentences. First, I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) has said: it is her wish and that of the family that if at all possible this very comprehensive collection should be kept together. It would be easy to split it up, but naturally they would prefer that a life's work should be recognised as an entity, and I am sure that the Minister will be sympathetic to that wish.
My hon. Friend failed to mention that Lady Elton has said that she has no great preference as to where this collection should go in the first instance and, if Manchester has a great case, clearly that should be considered; but equally I understand that the family are very happy with the conclusion that the collection should go to Ironbridge.
There is one rather important point. If for any reason the accommodation at Ironbridge should prove unsatisfactory or if, for any other reason, the care and attention which the collection is given proves to be inadequate in future, there is a general feeling in the family that it would like the collection to come rather nearer home, to the great industrial, engineering and railway centre of Bristol. We shall get into a new argument if we start on that line.
It is only right that I should take a few moments to record that view. I do not believe that it seriously weakens my hon. Friend's case for a public debate on the question. As the constituency Member of Lady Elton, I felt it right that I should intervene in the debate.

2.0 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr.

Silvester) on his success in obtaining this debate tonight? Unusually for an Adjournment debate there are other hon. Members present. There is the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who is representing the widow of the founder of this collection, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), the Minister of State at the Department of Industry, who has persistently been most interested in this matter.
Only a short time ago, in March this year, I commented during a similar debate that we were breaking new ground. Then we were discussing the allocation of the Blenheim archives. Now we are concerned with the Elton collection. I believe that the interest shown in respect of both these collections is symptomatic of the much greater concern for our national heritage that is now widespread throughout the country. Part of this heightened concern was, I believe, caused by the Mentmore saga. Arising from that we had the inquiry into the National Land Fund by the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure. Its stimulating report has recently been published and has provoked—indeed is provoking—a great deal of earnest discussion both in Government circles and among those outside who are also concerned for the future of our national heritage. I think it fair to say that in general the Sub-Committee was not particularly happy with the way the National Land Fund is being administered. But it cannot be all bad if it has enabled us to obtain the Elton collection for the nation.
I should like to endorse all that the hon. Member has said about the importance of the Elton collection. Taken individually, the items which make up the collection may seem to the casual observer to be mere memorabilia, worth a passing glance perhaps, but, combined, these individual items form a comprehensive collection of a unique order. They provide in the most telling way not only a commentary on the history but the very history itself of our technological advance from the start of the industrial revolution onwards. Nor can I of course disagree with the hon. Member about the important part played by Manchester in the Industrial Revolution and subsequently.
But before I turn to the detailed points on the allocation of the collection, perhaps I could describe briefly the procedures that are involved before my noble Friend the Minister responsible for the arts comes to a decision on the allocation of an item which has been accepted by the Treasury in lieu of tax, whether it be a work of art, a piece of furniture or, as is this case, a unique collection.
If an object is to be accepted in payment of the whole or part of a tax liability, the Government have to he satisfied that it is
pre-eminent for its national, scientific, historic or artistic interest".
Obviously, then, the standard is very high and quite a number of objects offered in lieu of tax fail to make the grade. However, once an article has been accepted and paid for from the National Land Fund through our much-maligned procedures, it falls to the Minister with responsibility for the arts in whichever country—England, Scotland or Wales—where the tax liability has arisen to decide to which public collection it should be allocated. But decisions of this kind must rest on aesthetic and historical grounds as well as on technical factors such as security and accessibility to the public. It has long been the policy in this country for the Government to distance themselves from aesthetic questions and rely on advice from bodies of experts in the field.
In normal circumstances, the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries is the body we ask for advice on the appropriate place to which works of art and other museum items and collections should be allocated. I think it right and proper, therefore, on this occasion to say a word about the workings of the commission. Its membership reflects the broad spectrum of those interested in the national heritage and the part to be played in its preservation by our museums and galleries, whether national or local. There are independent members as well as those representing the museums and galleries.
I should like to take a moment here to pay particular tribute to the noble Lord the Earl of Rosse, who retired a few days ago from the chairmanship after 22 years of wise and distinguished service. The Earl of Plymouth was not a member of the special panel set up by

the commission to consider the Elton collection, and when the commission considered the panel's recommendations he declared his interest and so disqualified himself from the proceedings. It is only fair to say that on behalf of the noble Lord.
After the question of the allocation of an object has been referred to the standing commission, any public collection, whether local or national, can apply for the object to be allocated to it. The standing commission takes a great many factors into consideration. It always takes account of any wishes expressed by the testator or his executors, and I can assure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that this was a factor taken into account with regard to the Elton collection. It also, of course, considers very carefully the precise nature of the item in question.
Here it asks itself a number of questions—for example, is the object of such outstanding importance that it should be allocated to the appropriate national collection, or is it primarily of academic importance, so that allocation to a collection mainly of benefit to scholars would be the answer? Is it of significance to a particular area of the country? Does much of its interest lie in comparison with other works of the same genre, or is it such that it can stand alone as an example of its type? All these questions are weighed very carefully by the standing commission. To find answers to some of them it may in its turn need advice, and here it turns to the experts in the national museums and galleries.
A very important aspect of the standing commission's deliberations in some cases is the suitability of the accommodation offered. Of course, accommodation of a collection the size of the one under discussion tonight requires a great deal more thought than just the finding of extra space in a showcase or on a wall. Apart from the pure accommodation point, the standing commission must also consider the security arrangements and the conservation capabilities of each applicant museum. Once it has answers to all the questions which it has asked itself, the standing commission must weigh the different, sometimes conflicting, factors one against another and come up with one answer. This is a real task for experts


and one which I believe those of us concerned merely on the fringe of museum policy, who know enough to be aware of what we do not know, would not care to undertake.
So, with the Elton collection, the standing commission set about its task. This was made yet more complicated by the all-embracing nature of the collection. Its inventory reads like an illustrated social history. All sort of things, as the hon. Gentlemen know, are linked together in this collection. No fewer than six applications for the collection were received, with two further ones for individual items if it had been decided to split up the collection.
It was, however, decided to treat the collection as a whole, in accordance with the testator's wishes, and the most difficult problem facing the standing commission—and each of the museums which understandably yearned to acquire this fascinating collection—was that of accommodation. But, before coming to that particularly knotty problem, it considered the testator's and executor's wishes. It also recognised that it could be argued that a collection demonstrating the history of the Industrial Revolution and its subsequent developments should be housed in a location in which heavy industry predominates.
The standing commission considered all these points of view. It examined the six applications very thoroughly. It is a measure of its thoroughness that it found it necessary to take oral evidence from all the applicants. In due course, the commission submitted its recommendation to my noble Friend.
The next stage of the process, the consideration of the recommendation by the Minister responsible for the arts, is no mere rubber-stamping exercise. My noble Friend takes these questions of allocation very seriously and considers them all personally. The fact that the standing commission's recommendations are almost invariably accepted is a tribute to its standards and judgment.
While this case was under consideration, my noble Friend was very much impressed with the strength of feeling aroused by the Elton collection when he visited Manchester earlier this year. For that reason he took the unprecedented step of asking

the standing commission to look again at the claims of Manchester after it had made its initial recommendation. This it did, but, after a very careful review of all the relevant facts, its firm advice, that neither he nor I can fault, is that the case for Manchester was by no means the strongest of the six. As the hon. Member will no doubt have seen, my right hon. Friend announced last Friday, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) that the collection is to be allocated to the Iron-bridge Gorge Museum.
The hon. Member and other hon. and right hon. Members from the Manchester area, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, who is present to listen to this debate, to say nothing of the chairman and the director of the North-Western Museum of Science and Industry, have pleaded the cause of that museum with eloquence, both to my noble Friend and, I am sure, to the standing commission. They indeed persuaded my noble Friend to ask the standing commission to take a second look. Naturally, as a North-West Member myself, I would have been delighted if the case in favour of Manchester had been proven. But, in the light of all the evidence, I have to support the decision in favour of Ironbridge.
Ironbridge, currently the holder of the coveted European Museum of the Year Award, with about 200,000 visitors to its sites each year, has a building waiting for the collection. As soon as the final touches have been put to the necessary restoration work, and once the collection has been fully catalogued, it will be on display within a matter of months. Nor is Iron-bridge at the back of beyond. It is very close to the heart of the national road and rail network. Indeed, with 200,000 visitors a year already, many of them from overseas, I do not think there can be any real doubt about its accessibility.
I have to admit, and with some sadness in my heart, that the accommodation offered by Manchester could not match that at Ironbridge. There is no permanent building available. Indeed, I understand that the question of permanent accommodation for the whole museum was and is still under discussion. In the short term, this pre-eminent collection would have been housed in temporary makeshift accommodation, some way from both the

470a
rest of the museum and the university, so it would be inconvenient both for the general public and for scholars. The medium-term proposal was for an extension to the present museum building, which is widely acknowledged to be inadequate for the existing collection and whose drawbacks would have been emphasised by the addition of the Elton collection. The long-term future is, as I have said, still in the balance.
The consideration of this case has taken a long time. For once, I offer no apology for tardiness. I believe that a task of the nature of the allocation of the Elton collection requires painstaking attention and that inevitably takes time. I have already referred to the thoroughness of the stand-
470b
ing commission, and I pay tribute to it again. It is a measure of both its and the Government's recognition of the importance and unique quality of this collection that deliberations at all stages have taken much longer than usual. I cannot hope to have persuaded the hon. Member that the decision in favour of Iron-bridge, which I must endorse, was the right one, but I hope I have said enough to convince him that the decision was not taken lightly and that the claims of Manchester were given very fair treatment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Two o'clock.

SCOTLAND BILL

Division List No.280 (See c. 339]

Division No. 280,
AYES
[6.30 p.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hooson, Emlyn
Reid, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bates, Alf
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchanan, Richard
John, Brynmor
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rowlands, Ted


Campbell, Ian
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Canavan, Dennis
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sillars, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilfedder, James
Smith, Cyril. (Rochdale)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knox, David
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Eristol S)
Lamble, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cohen, Stanley
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crawford, Douglas
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Swain, Thomas


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
MacCormick, Iain
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dempsey, James
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Dewar, Donald
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Dormand, J. D.
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thompson, George


Dunnett, Jack
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tierney, Sydney


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tinn, James


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Magee, Bryan
Tuck, Raphael


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Faulds, Andrew
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watt, Hamish


Fell, Anthony
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Miscampbell, Norman
Welsh, Andrew


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
White, James (Pollok)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Wigley, Dafydd


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Freud, Clement
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ginsburg, David
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Golding, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gourlay, Harry
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Graham, Ted
O'Halloran, Michael
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Padley, Walter
Woof, Robert


Grocott, Bruce
Pardoe, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Parker, John



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Haselhurst, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Frank R. While


Henderson, Douglas






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Bradley, Tom
Costain, A. P.


Anderson, Donald
Braine, Sir Bernard
Cowans, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brittan, Leon
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Crawshaw, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cronin, John


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Crouch, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buck, Antony
Crowder. F. P.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Budgen, Nick
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Burden, F. A.
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)


Bean, R. E.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dalyell, Tam


Bendall, Vivian
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carson, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Benyon, W.
Carter, Ray
Deakins, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John
Bean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Body, Richard
Clemitson, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cockcroft, John
Durant, Tony


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Coleman, Donald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Edge, Geoff


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cope, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Corbett, Robin
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Elliott, Sir William
Lamborn, Harry
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Emery, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rifkind, Malcolm


Evans, John (Newton)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Eyre, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Litterick, Tom
Roderick, Caerwyn


Flannery, Martin
Loveridge, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, J. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul B.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCartney, Hugh
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fox, Marcus
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sainsbury, Tim


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sandelson, Neville


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sever, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madden, Max
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mahon, Simon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


George, Bruce
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marther, Carol
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Gilmocr, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Silverman, Julius


Glyn, Or Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop Robin
Silvester, Fred


Goodhew, Victor
Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Speed, Keith


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, David (Basngstoke)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Hemish
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Stott, Roger


Hardy, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tebbit, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geralnt
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David
Tilley, John


Hodgson, Robin
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomlinson, John


Hooley, Frank
Morton, George
Townsend, Cyril D.


Horam, John
Neave, Airey
Trotter, Neville


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Urwin, T. W.


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Huckfield, Les
Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Normanton, Tom
Ward, Michael


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Onslow, Cranley
Watkins, David


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
Watkinson, John


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weatherill, Bernard


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Weetch, Ken


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wellbeloved, James


Janner, Greville
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Wells, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Jessel, Toby
Parker, John
Wiggln, Jerry


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinatead)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jopling, Michael
Fenhaligon, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Judd, Frank
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Winterton, Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kelley, Richard
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Hon George


Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Raison, Timothy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kinnock, Neil
Rathbone, Tim
Miss Harvie Anderson and


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Mr Gerry Fowler


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Division No. 281]
AYES
[8.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchanan, Richard


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boardman, H.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Toll'ham)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Campbell, Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Canavan, Dennis


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradley, Tom
Carmichael, Neil


Bates, Alf
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Carter, Ray


Bean, R. E.
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Carter-Jones, Lewis

Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Reid, George


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Clemilson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cook, Robert F (Edln C)
John, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Crawford, Douglas
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowlher, Stan (Rotherham)
Kaulman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sandelson, Neville


Cryer, Bob
Kelley, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Kilfedder, James
Sever, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee, John
Sillars, James


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Litterick, Tom
Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Snape, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Eadie, Alex
MacCormick, Iain
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ellis. Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Swain, Thomas


English, Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen,
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Evans, John (Newton)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ewing, Rarry (Stirling)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Magee, Bryan
Thompson, George


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Simon
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mallelleu, J. P. W.
Tierney, Sydney


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Tilley, John


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Tomlinson, John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Walker, Ha-old (Doncaster)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Freud, Clement
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Ward, Michael


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Molloy, William
Watkins, David


George, Bruce
Moonman, Eric
Watkinson, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watt, Hamish


Ginsburg, David
Morris Rt Hon Charles R.
Weetch, Ken


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Gould, Bryan
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wellbeloved, James


Gourlay, Harry
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Welsh, Andrew


Graham, Ted
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Morton, George
White, James (Pollok)


Grocott, Bruce
Newens, Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Noble, Mike
Whitlock, William


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ogden, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Kalloran, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Padley, Walter
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Henderson, Douglas
Pardoa, John
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hooley, Frank
Park, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Horam, John
Parker, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woof, Robert


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pendry, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Huckfield, Les
Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Perry, Ernest



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr James Hamilton and


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Radice, Giles
Mr A. W. Stallard


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Gorst, John
Morgan, Geraint


Alison, Michael
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Arnold, Tom
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Banks, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Eeil, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Normanton, Tom


Bendall, Vivian
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Nott, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Benyon, W.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John
Osborn, John


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Page, John (Harrow West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Parkinson, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Ian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Heseltine, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Braine, Sir Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Britian, Leon
Hodgson, Robin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Holland, Philip
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hurd, Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Budgen, Nick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bulmer, Esmond
James, David
Rhodes James, R.


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wardst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


But!er, Adam (Besworth)
Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph. Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kerr, Russell
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cockcroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Scott, Nicholas


Cope, John
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Crowder, F. P.
Latham Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, fan
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Drayson, Burnaby
Loveridge, John
Smith, Timothy John(Ashfield)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Durant, Tony
McCusker, H.
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sproat, Iain


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanley, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Falrgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel;
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Manlier, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miller, Hal (Bronsgrove)
Trotter, Neville


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter
Urwin, T. W.


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mitchel, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Molyneaux, James
Wakeham, John


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Goodhew, Victor
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walker-Smith Rt Hon. Sir Derek


Goodlad, Alastair
More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Wall, Patrick
Whitney, Raymond
Younger, Hon George


Walters, Dennis
Wiggin, Jerry



Warren, Kenneth
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Mr Spencer Le Marchant and


Wells, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr Michael Roberts

Division List No.282 [see c. 402]

Division No. 282
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Stough


Anderson, Donald
Evans,Ioan (Aberdare)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Loyden, Eddie


Ashley, Jack
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Luard. Evan


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham
)Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacCormick, Iain


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bates, Alf
Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank


Bean, R. E.
Forrester, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Beith, A. J.
Fowler Gerald (The Wrekin)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Maclennan, Robert


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNamara, Kevin


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max


Boardman, H.
George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Simon


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ginsburg, David
Mallelleu, J. P. W.


Botlomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth


Bradley, Tom
Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gourlay, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Graham, Ted
Meacher, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mikardo, Ian


Buchan, Norman
Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Buchanan, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Campbell, Ian
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cant, R. B.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Carter, Ray
Heffer, Eric S.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Henderson, Douglas
Morton, George


Cartwright, John
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Horam, John
Noble, Mike


Clemitson, Ivor
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Oakes Gordon


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Eristol S!
Howells. Geraint (Cardigan)
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
O'Halloran, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ovenden. John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hurter, Adam
Pardoe, John


Crawford, Douglas
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Park, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parker, John


Cronin, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parry, Robert


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cryer, Bob
Janner. Greville
Pendry, Tom


Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Penhaligon David


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, C. (Lewieham W)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles


Davie, Clinton (Hackney)


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, Russell (Inverness)
Reid, George


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dewar, Donald
Judd, Frank
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Geoffrey


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell
Roderick, Caerwyn


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Edge, Geoff
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


English, Michael
Lee, John
Sedgemore, Brian

Sever, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Welsh, Andrew


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
White, James (Pollok)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Whitehead, Phillip


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thompson, George
Wigley, Dafydd


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sillars, James
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Silverman, Julius
Tilley, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Skinner, Dennis
Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)
Tomlinson, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Tomney, Frank
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Snape, Peter
Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Spearing, Nigel
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stallard, A. w.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woodall, Alec


Steel, Rt Hon David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Woof, Robert


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Ward, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Futham)
Watkins, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stoddart, David
Watkinson, John



Stott, Roger
Watt, Hamish
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strang, Gavin
Weetch, Ken
Mr Donald Coleman and


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Weitzman, David
Mr Jim Marshall


Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jessel, Toby


Aitken, Jonathan
Elliott, Sir William
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Alison, Michael
Emery, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Baker, Kenneth
Fell, Anthony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kinnock, Neil


Bell, Ronald
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bendall, Vivian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Benyon,W.
Forman, Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biffen, John
Fox, Marcus
Latham Michael (Melton)


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lawrence, Ivan


Blaker, Peter
Fry, Peter
Lawson, Nigel


Body, Richard
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Le Marchant, Spencer


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lloyd, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Loveridge, John


Eraine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McCrindle, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCusker, H.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Brotherton, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Madel, David


Budgen, Nick
Gray, Hamish
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grieve, Percy
Marten, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Eldon
Mates, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grist, Ian
Marther, Carol


Carlisle, Mark
Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Channon, Paul
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Mawby, Ray


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Clegg, Walter
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter


Cockcroft, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Cook, Robert F. (Edin C)
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Cope, John
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Molyneaux, James


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector


Costain, A. P.
Higgins, Terence L.
Montgomery, Fergus


Crowder, F. P.
Hodgson, Robin
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Dalyell, Tam
Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Dodsworlh, Geoffrey
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Drayson, Burnaby
Hurd, Douglas
Mudd, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey


Durant, Tony
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Nelson, Anthony


Dykes Hugh
James, David
Neubert, Michael


Eden Rt Hon Sir John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Newton, Tony

Normanton, Tom
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Nott, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Onslow, Cranley
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tebbit, Norman


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Royle, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Osborn, John
Sainsbury, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, John (Harrow West)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Scott, Nicholas
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Parkinson, Cecil
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Percival, Ian
Shepherd, Colin
Viggers, Peter


Pink, R. Bonner
Shersby, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Sims, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Rt Hon p. (Worcester)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith. Rt Hon Sir Derek


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wall, Patrick


Raison, Timothy
Smith, Timothy John(Ashfield)
Walters, Dennis


Rathbone, Tim
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Spence, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wells, John


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Whitney, Raymond


Rhodes James, R,
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stainton, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Ridsdale, Julian
Stanley, John
Younger, Hon George


Rifkind, Malcolm
Steen, Anthony (Wavertee)



Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stokes, John
Sir. George Young and


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr Jim Lester


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tapsell, Peter

Division List No.283 [See c. 403]

Division No. 283]
AYES
10.15 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Crawford, Douglas
Ginsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Crawshaw, Richard
Golding, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cronin, John
Gould, Bryan


Armstrong, Ernest
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Jack
Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dalyell, Tam
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott ham)
Davidson, Arthur
Grocott, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bain. Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hardy. Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bates, Alt
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Bean, R. E.
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beith, A. J.
Dean. Joseph (Leeds West)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dempsey, James
Henderson, Douglas


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dewar, Donald
Hooley, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Boardman, H.
Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Les


Bradley, Tom
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Buchanan, Richard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Janner Greville


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Evans, John (Newton)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Campbell, Ian
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
oohnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter, Ray
Flannery Martin
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cartwright, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ford. Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clemitson, Ivor
Forrester, John
Judd Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kelley, Richard


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Cook, Robert F. (Edin C)
Freud, Clement
Kilfedder, James


Corbett, Robin
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamble, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
George, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lamond, James

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lee, John
Pardoe, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Park, George
Swain, Thomas


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Parker, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Litterick, Tom
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loyden, Eddie
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Luard, Evan
Penhaligon David
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Perry, Ernest
Thompson, George


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Tierney, Sydney


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Tilley, John


MacCormick, Iain
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Reid, George
Tomney, Frank


McElhone, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Urwin, Tom


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Ward, Michael


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Watkins, David


McNamara, Kevin
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Watkinson, John


Madden, Max
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Watt, Hamish


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Mahon, Simon
Rose, Paul B.
Weitzman, David


Mallelleu, J. P. W.
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wellbeloved, James


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Welsh, Andrew


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Sandelson, Neville
While. Frank R. (Bury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Sever, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford S)
Whitlock, William


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Mikardo, Ian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Molloy, William
Sillars, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Morton, George
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Snape, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel
Woof, Robert


Newens, Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Noble, Mike
Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Oakes, Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David



Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stoddart, David
Mr. James Tinn


Ovenden, John
Stott, Roger





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Mark
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Aitken, Jonathan
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Michael
Channon, Paul
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Tom
Churchill, W. S.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clark. Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fox, Marcus


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fraser, Rt Hon H (Stafford &amp; St)


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Kenneth
Clegg, Walter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Banks, Robert
Cockcroft, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmocr, Sir John (East File)


Benyon, W.
Costain, A. P.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bitten, John
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Body, Richard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gow, tan (Eastbourne)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Drayson, Burnaby
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Crant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony
Gray, Hamish


Brittan, Leon
Dykes. Hugh
Grieve, Percy


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Eder., Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon


Brooke, Hon Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Brotherton, Michael
Elliott, Sir William
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eyre, Reginald
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Buck, Antony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Farr, John
Hannam, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Fell, Anthony
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Scott, Nicholas


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shepherd, Colin


Hodgson, Robin
Moate, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Silvester, Fred


Howell, David (Guildford)
Monro, Hector
Sims, Roger


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sinclair, Sir George


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hurd, Douglas
Mote. Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Timothy John(Ashfield)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Speed, Keith


James, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spence, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Mudd, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Airey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Nelson, Anthony
Sproat, Iain


Jone Arthur (Daventry)
Neubert, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Newton, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Normanton, Tom
Stanley, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertee)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stokes, John


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Osborn, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, John (Harrow West)
Tapsell, Peter


Knox, David
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lamont, Norman
Page, Richard (Workington)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Langtord-Holt, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


Latham Michael (Melton)
Percival, Ian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Pink, R. Bonner
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lawson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Townsend, Cyril D.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trotter, Neville


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Wakeham, John


McCrindle, Robert
Rathbone, Tim
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McCusker, H.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


MacGregor, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wall, Patrick


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rhodes James, R.
Walters, Dennis


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Warren, Kenneth


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wells, John


Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Whitney, Raymond


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Marten, Neil
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Marther, Carol
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Maude, Angus
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Younger, Hon George


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)



Mawby, Ray
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Mayhew, Patrick
Sainsbury, Tim
Mr. Peter Morrison

Division List No.284 [See c. 404]

Division No. 284]
AYES
[10.32 p.m.


Aliaun, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davidson, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Campbell, Ian
Davies Rt Hon Denzil


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


3air., Mrs Margaret
Carmichael, Neil
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter, Ray
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bates, Alt
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bean, R. E.
Cartwright, John
Dempsey, James


Beith, A. J.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Clemitson, Ivor
Doig, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Bldwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Coleman, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cook, Robert F. (Edin C)
Dunnett, Jack


Boardman, H.
Corbett, Robin
Eadie, Alex


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cowans, Harry
Edge, Geoff


Bottomley, Peter
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bradley, Tom
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawford, Douglas
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Crawshaw, Richard
English, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cronin, John
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Litterick, Tom
Sever, John


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Flannery Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Forrester, John
MacCormick, Iain
Sillars, James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)


Freud, Clement
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Snape, Peter


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon
Stott, Roger


Graham, Ted
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Swain, Thomas


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Waller
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thompson, George


Hatter3ley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tierney, Sydney


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Molloy. William
Tilley, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Tomlinson, John


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tomney, Frank


Hooson, Emlyn
Morton, George
Torney, Tom


Horam, John
Multey, Rt Hon Frederick
Urwln, T. W.


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Newens, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble Mike
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ogden, Eric
Ward, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Watkinson, John


Hunter, Adam
Ovenden John
Watt, Hamish


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur
Weetch, Ken


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pardoe, John
Weitzman, David


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parker, John
Welsh, Andrew


Janner, Greville
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Pollok)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Penhaligon, David
Whitlock, William


John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnson, James (Hull Wast)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Reid, George
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Judd, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Kaulman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Kelley, Richard
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woodall, Alec


Kilfedder, James
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woof, Robert


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)



Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Lee, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. A. W. Stallard.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Ranks, Robert
Blaker, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Alison, Michael
Bendall, Vivian
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Berry, Hon Anthony
Braine, Sir Bernard


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Baker, Kenneth
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Brooke, Hon Peter
Holland, Philip
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brotherton, Michael
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hurd, Douglas
Raison, Timothy


Buck, Antony
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rathbone, Tim


Budgen, Nick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bulmer, Esmond
James, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Burden, F. A.
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jessel Toby
Rhodes James, R.


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cockcroft, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knox, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Cope, John
Lamont Norman
Royle, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Latham Michael (Melton)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crowder, F. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin


Drayson, Burnaby
Lloyd, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Durant, Tony
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McCusker, H.
Sinclair, Sir George


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, Sir William
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Emery, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Smith, Timothy John(Ashfield)


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spence, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Farr, John
Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fell, Anthony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sproat, Iain


Fisher. Sir Nigel
Marten, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Males, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marther, Carol
Stanley, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maude, Angus
Steen, Anthony (Wavertee)


Forman, Nigel
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mills, Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mitchell, David (Basngstoke)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodhart, Philip
Monro, Hector
Trotter, Neville


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gorst, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Viggers, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morgan, Geraint
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wakeham, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Grieve, Percy
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Griffiths, Eldon
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Grist, Ian
Neave, Airey
Wallers, Dennis


Grylls, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neubert, Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Newton, Tony
Wells, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Normanton, Tom
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nott, John
Whitney, Raymond


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley
Wiggin, Jerry


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Haselhurst, Alan
Osborn, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hon George


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (Workington)



Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Parkinson, Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Hodgson, Robin
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Division List No. 285 [See c. 433]

Division No. 285]
AYES
[12.00 midnight


Allaun, Frank
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Ashley, Jack
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
McNamara, Kevin


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Forrester, John
Madden, Max


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Magee, Bryan


Bates, All
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mahon, Simon


Bean, R. E.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mallelleu, J. P. W.


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Meacher, Michael


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boardman, H.
Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gould, Bryan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Bradley, Tom
Grant John (Islington C)
Molloy, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morton, George


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Buchanan, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Henderson, Douglas
Nobie, Mike


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Cant, R. B.
Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter, Ray
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Ovenden John


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Huckfield, Les
Pardoe, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cook, Robert F (Edin C)
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Corbett, Robin
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Penhaligon, David


Cowans, Harry
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawford, Douglas
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Raid, George


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Daiyell, Tam
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Davidson, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Deakins, Eric
Kaulman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dean Joseph (Leeds West)
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Rose, Paul B.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David
Sandelson, Neville


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Sever, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans, John (Newton)
McCartney, Hugh
Snape, Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacCormick, Iain
Spearing, Nigel







Spriggs, Leslie
Tinn, James
Whitlock, William


Stallard, A. W.
Tomlinson, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Steel, Rt Hon David
Tomney, Frank
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stoddart, David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Stott, Roger
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Ward, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkins, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Watkinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Watt, Hamish
Wool, Robert


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weetch, Ken
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weitzman, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thompson, George
wellbeloved, James



Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Welsh, Andrew
TELLERS FOR AYES:


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Mr James Hamilton and


Tierney, Sydney
Whiie, James (Pollok)
Mr Donald Coleman


Tilley, John
Whitehead, Phillip





NOES


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
Knox, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Fell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Alison, Michael
Fisher. Sir Nigel
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lawrence, Ivan


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Forman, Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Baker, Kenneth
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Banks, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Neil


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodhew, Victor
Madel, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John
Marten, Neil


Brittan, Leon
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Angus


Brotherton, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Buck, Antony
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Mills, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Carlisle, Mark
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector


Channon, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hawkins, Paul
More Jasper (Ludlow)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cockcroft, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hodgson, Robin
Mudd, David


Cope, John
Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Neubert, Michael


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony


Crouch, David
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Normanton, Tom


Crowder, F. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael clark
Onslow, Cranley


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
James, David
Osborn, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Drayson, Burnaby
Jessel, Toby
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Parkinson, Cecil


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Eden. Rt Hon Sir John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Ian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner


Emery, Peter
Keliett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairgrieve, Russell
Knight, Mrs Jill
Pym, Rt Hon Francis







Ralson, Timothy
Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D.


Rathbone, Tim
Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Sinclair, Sir George
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, R.
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Wakeham, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Speed, Keith
Walder, David (Ciltheroe)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spence, John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wall, Patrick


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stainton, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Weatherill, Bernard


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevonoaks)
Stanley, John
Wells, John


Rossi Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertee)
Whltelaw, Rt Hon William


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hltchin)
Whitney, Raymond


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Sainsbury, Tim
Tapsell, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Younger, Hon George


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)



Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tebbit, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr Spencer Le Marchant and


Shepherd, Colin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Sir George Young.


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Division List No. 286 [See c. 434]

Division No. 286]
AYES
[12.15 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Dalyell, Tarn
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hooson, Emlyn


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dcakins, Eric
Horam, John


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dewar, Donald
Huckfield, Les


Bates, Alf
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bean, R. E.
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy. A. E. P.
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie. Alex
lrving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Edge, Geoff
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Boardman, H.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Janner, Greville


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, loan (Aberdara)
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Buchanan, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Judd, Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Flannery, Martin
Kaurman, Rt Hon Gerald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kelley, Richard


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kerr, Russell


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Nell


Carter, Ray
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Lambie, David


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamborn, Harry


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lamond, James


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Freud. Clement
Latham, Arthur (Paddinglon)


Clemitson, Ivor
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lee, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cohen, Stanley
George, Bruce
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Coleman, Donald
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ginsburg, David
Litterick, Tom


Corbett, Robin
Golding, John
Loyden, Eddie


Cowans, Harry
Gould, Bryan
Luard, Evan


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Graham Ted
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Crawford, Douglas
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson


Crawehaw, Richard
Grocott, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacCormick, Iain


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hardy, Peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cryer, Bob
Harrison,Rt Hon Walter
McElhone, Frank


Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
MacFarquhar, Roderick







McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Radice, Giles
Thompson, George


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Reid, George
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tierney, Sydney


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tilley, John


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James


Madden, Max
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tomlinson, John


Magee, Bryan
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Mahon, Simon
Robinson, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Mallelleu, J. P. W.
Roderick, Caerwyn
Urwin, T. W.


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Meacher, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Michael


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Mikardo, Ian
Sandelson, Neville
Watkinson, John


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian
Watt, Hamish


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Sever, John
Weetch, Ken


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Weitzman, David


Molloy, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, James (Pollok)


Morton, Gerge
Sillars, James
Whitehead, Phillip


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Silverman, Julius
Whitlock, William


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Noble, Mike
Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Oakes, Gordon
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ogden, Eric
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


O'Halloran, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ovenden, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pardoe, John
Stott, Roger
Woodall, Alec


Park, George
Strang, Gavin
Woof, Robert


Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Pavitt, Laurie
Swain, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)



Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mr. Peter Snape and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Mr. Joseph Dean


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gardiner, George (Reigatc)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Alison, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)


Arnold, Tom
Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Cockcroft, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodhart, Philip


Awdry, Daniel
Cope, John
Goodhew, Victor


Baker, Kenneth
Cormack, Patrick
Goodlad, Alastair


Banks, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John


Bendall, Vivian
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Crouch, David
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Benyon, W.
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gray, Hamish


Biffen, John
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grieve, Percy


Biggs-Davison, John
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eldon


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J[...]s
Grist, Ian


Body, Richard
Drayson, Burnaby
Grylls. Michael


Boscawe[...] Robert
Durant, Tony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dykes. Hugh
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brittan, Leon
Emery, Peter
Hannam, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Eyre, Reginald
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Farr, John
Hawkins, Paul


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fell, Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Buck, Antony
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Heseltine, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hodgson, Robin


Burden, F. A.
Forman, Nigel
Holland, Philip


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hordern, Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Fox, Marcus
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Channon, Paul
Fry, Peter
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Churchill, W. S.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Hurd, Douglas







Hutchison, Michael Clark
Montgomery, Fergus
Shersby, Michael


lrving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Silvester, Fred


James, David
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sims, Roger


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morgan, Geraint
Sinclair, Sir George


Jessel, Toby
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Skeet, T. H. H.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morrison, Rt Hon Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Mudd, David
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Jopling, Michael
Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Nelson, Anthony
Spence,John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Newlon, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Normanton, Tom
Sproat, Iain


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Nott, John
Stainton, Keith


Knight, Mrs Jill
Onsiow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knox, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stanley, John


Lamont, Norman
Osborn, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertee)


Langford-Holl, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Latham Michael (Mellon)
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Richard (Workington)
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Lawson, Nigel
Parkinson, Cecil
Tapseti,Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pattie, Geoffrey
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Peroival, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pink, R. Bonner
Tebbit, Norman


Lloyd, Ian
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Temple-Morris, Peter


Loveridge, John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Luce, Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


McCrindle, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.


McCusker, H.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Macfarlane, Nell
Raison, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


MacGregor, John
Rathbone. Tim
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Viggers, Peter


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wakeham, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rhodes James, R.
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Wcioesier)


Madel, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Marten, Nell
Rldsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Mates, Michael
Rlfkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Marther, Carol
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wells, John


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mawby, Ray
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Whitney, Raymond


Maxwell Hyslop, Robin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mayhew, Patrick
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Winterton, Nicholas


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sainsbury, Tim
Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Aclon)


Mills, Peter
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hon George


Miscampbell, Norman
Scott, Nicholas



Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
TELLEKS FOR THE NOES:


Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Molyneaux, James
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Monro, Hector

Division List No. 287 [See c. 456]

Division No. 287]
AYES
[1.30 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Buchanan, Richard
Davis, Clinton (Hackney c)


Anderson, Donald
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Deaklns, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Armstrong, Ernest
Campbell, Ian
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Dempsey, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carter, Ray
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Doig. Peter


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Cartwright, John
Dormand, J. D.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clemitson, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bates, Alf
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack


Bean, R. E.
Cohen, Stanley
Eadie, le[...]


Belth, A. J.
Cook, Robert F. (Edin C)
Edge, Geoff


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Corbett, Robin
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cowans, Harry
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
English, Michael


Boardman, H.
Crawford, Douglas
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans,[...]ohn (Newton)


Booth[...]Miss Betty
Cronin, John
Ewing Harry (Stirling)


Bottomley Rt Hon Arthur
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Bradley, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Bryan ([...]afield N)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Flanner Martin


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Hor (Gower)
Fletcher, L. R. (llkeston)







Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacCormick, Iain
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sillars, James


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silverman, Julius


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Cyril, (Rochdale)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snape, Peter


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert, Rt. Hon Dr John
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Golding, John
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Gould, Bryan
Mallelleu, J. P. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stott, Roger


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael
Swain, Thomas


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millar, Rt Hon Sruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Thompson, George


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Hooson, Emlyn
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Horam, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tierney, Sydney


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Morton, George
Tilley, John


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tinn, James


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomlinson, John


Huckfield, Les
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Newens, Stanley
Torney, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Urwin, T. W.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ovenden, John
Ward, Michael


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Janner, Greville
Pardoe, John
Watkinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Park, George
Watt, Hamish


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert
Weetch, Ken


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie
Weitzman, David


John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Andrew


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Perry, Ernest
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
White, James (Pollok)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Judd, Frank
Reid, George
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lambie, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lam born, Harry
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Leadbiter, Ted
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Woodall, Alec


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rose, Paul B.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Litterick, Tom
Rowlands, Ted



Loyden, Eddie
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Luard, Evan
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. James Hamilton and


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sever, John
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)



Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J Dickson
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert





NOES


Abse, Leo
Benyon, W.
Brotherton, Michael


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Michael
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Arnold, Tom
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Atkinson, David (B'mouth East)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Bulmer, Esmond


Awdry, Daniel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Burden, F. A.


Baker, Kenneth
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Banks, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Carlisle, Mark


Bendall, Vivian
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Brooke, Hon Peter
Channon, Paul







Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Ralson, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cockcroft, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Jopling Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cope, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhodes James, R.


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kitson. Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawson, Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
McCusker, H.
Shepherd, Colin


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Macfarlane, Nell
Shersby, Michael


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


Farr, John
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Sims, Roger


Foll, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Smith, Timothy John(Ashfield)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Speed, Keith


Forman, Nigel
Marten, Neil
Spence, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maude, Angus
Sproat, Iain


Fry, Peter
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stainton, Keith


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanley, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mayhew, Patrick
Steen, Anthony (Wavertee)


Gllmoor, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gllmoor, Sir John (East Fife)
Miller, Hal (Broinsgrove)
Stokes, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mills, Peter
Stradling, Thomas, J.


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
Tebbit, Norman


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint
Trotter, Neville


Griffiths, Eldon
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grist, Ian
Morrson, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David
Wakeham, John


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewcll)
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clltheroe)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony
Walters, Dennis


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Normsnton, Tom
Warren, Kenneth


Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Craniey
Wells, John


Hawkins. Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John
Whitney, Raymond


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, John (Harrow West)
Wiggin, Jerry


Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Higgins, Terence L
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hodgson, Robin
Parkinson, Cecil
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Holland, Philip
Pattie, Geoffrey
Younger, Hon George


Hordern, Peter
Fercival, Ian



Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pientice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Hurd, Douglas
Price, David (Eastleigh)